Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
On 23:01 Fri 24 Apr , Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
In message 20090424200323.GD2953@game.jcrosoft.org you wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "move the STD API"?
In which way should the "STD API" be moved, and what exactly is the "STD API" you are referring to?
extract of arm init function
#if defined(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) print_cpuinfo, /* display cpu info (and speed) */ #endif #if defined(CONFIG_DISPLAY_BOARDINFO) checkboard, /* display board info */ #endif
I want we use the current API and not re-invent a new API for an arch only
Well, if you conside rthis the "standard API", this should (1) be documented somewhere, and (2) it must be fixed - at the moment, the code reads:
lib_arm/board.c:int print_cpuinfo (void); /* test-only */
I would not dare to use such a function in my code given the "test-only" comment.
sorry I've no time to clean every part of the arm as noone else are interrested in old code
so yes it will be cleanup but later asI work on other part of the arm actually which I will finish first
Uups :( And this is what I really have a problem with.
We sent a patch which removes only dead code, i.e. which consist only of '-' lines (well, except for the removal of a parameter passed by a function ;) ).
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-April/051338.html
Then we are asked to change other stuff which is touched by this removal, too, to get the patch applied (One could argue that a better way to deal with this would be to apply the code removal patch and ask for sending an *additional* patch to clean up API usage. And not make it dependent. But that's an other topic...)
Then we find that the changes we are asked to do rely on code that is marked with 'test only' and needs documentation.
And the request for this documentation (would it take more than 0.5h?) get the answer above.
And now? What are we supposed to do?
Change our patch based on 'test only' undocumented code?
Or will a trivial 'remove dead code only' patch delayed until e.g. the Kconfig framework or e.g. the new clock framework or e.g. <add what you want> will be ready? And when will this be?
A confused
Dirk