On Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >
> > So, no, this is not because I didn't like somebody else's coding style.
> > This is because with NAND addition this function would become an
> > absolutely unreadable monster. So, I would consider this patch a
> > readability improvement.
>
> But you are duplicating code. It may be just 20 lines or so, but the
> better approach would be to leave the common code as is and factor
> out two new functions being called from the common code.
Yes, the original code was:
...
flash_io(O_RDONLY);
...
flash_io(O_RDONLY);
...
flash_io(O_RDWR);
int flash_io(int mode)
{
fd = open(path, mode);
if (mode == O_RDONLY) {
...
} else {
...
}
close(fd);
}
I changed it to
...
flash_read();
...
flash_read();
...
flash_write();
...
int flash_read(void)
{
fd = open(path, O_RDONLY);
...
close(fd);
}
int flash_write(void)
{
fd = open(path, O_RDWR);
...
close(fd);
}
yes, I thus duplicate "open" and "close". We could do
...
flash_io(O_RDONLY);
...
flash_io(O_RDONLY);
...
flash_io(O_RDWR);
int flash_io(int mode)
{
fd = open(path, mode);
if (mode == O_RDONLY) {
do_flash_read(fd);
} else {
do_flash_write(fd);
}
close(fd);
}
but, honestly, I prefer my version. If you disagree, I can change it to
variant 3, no problem. This will mean redoing all patches 2-6 though...
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
