On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:16:16 -0400 Jerry Van Baren vanbargw@gmail.com wrote:
Kim Phillips wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:18:20 -0400 Jerry Van Baren gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com wrote:
IMO your proposal is not acceptable. Follow Grant's advice and the current cpu/mpc83xx/cpu.c methodology.
? Bartlomiej's first patch followed the 83xx 'methodology', which Grant commented on, which is what Bartlomiej tried to fix here. Maybe I missed something, but anyway, now that the window has closed, we can arrange to fix libfdt support for all powerpc boards for the next release.
Well, perhaps Grant can speak to the issue better than me, but I read Grant's reply as a request to coelesce the four "setter" functions into one, not to remove all setter functions and change it back to the original table mechanism. IMHO, using hardcoded [0] [1]... indexes is
sounds good. Thanks for clarifying this.
What about having a list of functions to call? It could be called something like fdt_update_sequence, and be similar in implementation to lib_ppc/board.c's init_sequence. It could also reside in lib_ppc, esp. since, e.g. all powerpc's have a timebase, and to help naturally enforce a certain level of consistency among powerpc board code. The updater/fixup/"setter" functions would only need be passed the pointer to the base of the blob to update.
We _have_ "a list of functions to call". That is what is done with the 83xx which is what I advocated and what Bartlomiej had before rewriting it back into a table without functions.
yeah, I meant /just/ a list of functions to call, without all the extra fluff in both the existing 83xx and Bartlomiej's implementations.
Kim