Hi Tom,
Le 05/03/2012 18:56, Tom Rini a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:44:09PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
How about this approach: since the problem is the presence of CPU-
(or Soc-)level elements in board-level config files, and since there
are probably many other such items in board co
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>
>>> +int __arch_cpu_init(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +int arch_cpu_init(void)
>>> + __attribute__((weak, alias("__arch_cpu_init")));
>>> +
>>
>> Please add and use __weak
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> +int __arch_cpu_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +int arch_cpu_init(void)
>> + __attribute__((weak, alias("__arch_cpu_init")));
>> +
>
> Please add and use __weak instead.
Ok, before I rework this patch I would like to confirm w
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 10:44:09PM +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> How about this approach: since the problem is the presence of CPU-
> (or Soc-)level elements in board-level config files, and since there
> are probably many other such items in board config files (CPU type
> in a SoC and HW IP conf
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:02:38AM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Create a weak-aliased arch_cpu_init, so that we can get rid of
> CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT
> and always call arch_cpu_init.
>
> This way we do not need to define CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT in every board file,
> since
> arch_cpu_init() is sup
On 01/03/2012 15:02, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Create a weak-aliased arch_cpu_init, so that we can get rid of
> CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT
> and always call arch_cpu_init.
>
> This way we do not need to define CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT in every board file,
> since
> arch_cpu_init() is supposed to handle commo
Le 01/03/2012 21:57, Fabio Estevam a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
This adds (some) (functionally dead) code to all boards that did not require
arch_cpu_init().
Yes, it adds a "return 0" only. Is this terribly bad?
Well...
Isn't it better than having to s
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Albert ARIBAUD
wrote:
> This adds (some) (functionally dead) code to all boards that did not require
> arch_cpu_init().
Yes, it adds a "return 0" only. Is this terribly bad?
Isn't it better than having to select CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT for every
board to select arch
Le 01/03/2012 15:02, Fabio Estevam a écrit :
Create a weak-aliased arch_cpu_init, so that we can get rid of
CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT
and always call arch_cpu_init.
This way we do not need to define CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT in every board file,
since
arch_cpu_init() is supposed to handle common CPU lev
> Create a weak-aliased arch_cpu_init, so that we can get rid of
> CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT and always call arch_cpu_init.
>
> This way we do not need to define CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT in every board file,
> since arch_cpu_init() is supposed to handle common CPU level code.
Acked-by: Marek Vasut
>
>
Create a weak-aliased arch_cpu_init, so that we can get rid of
CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT
and always call arch_cpu_init.
This way we do not need to define CONFIG_ARCH_CPU_INIT in every board file,
since
arch_cpu_init() is supposed to handle common CPU level code.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam
---
ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
