On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 15:26 +0100, Hannes Petermaier wrote:
>
> --- a/common/lcd.c
> +++ b/common/lcd.c
> @@ -400,12 +400,12 @@ __weak int lcd_get_size(int *line_length)
>
> int drv_lcd_init(void)
> {
> - struct stdio_dev lcddev;
> - int rc;
> -
> lcd_base = (void *) gd->fb_base;
>
> lcd_init(lcd_base); /* LCD initialization */
> +#ifndef CONFIG_LCD_NOSTDOUT
> + struct stdio_dev lcddev;
> + int rc;
>
> /* Device initialization */
> memset(&lcddev, 0, sizeof(lcddev));
What do language lawyers say about declarations after
instructions within blocks? This looks somewhat fishy.
> @@ -419,6 +419,9 @@ int drv_lcd_init(void)
> rc = stdio_register(&lcddev);
>
> return (rc == 0) ? 1 : rc;
> +#else
> + return 0;
> +#endif
> }
This (continuation from the above #ifndef) somehow reads like
inverted logic. It appears like "ifdef NOSTDOUT" is a shortcut,
not a strict alternative as the patch suggests.
In general U-Boot tries to get away from the multitude of ifdefs
where possible. I'm afraid adding a new one needs a very good
reason to get perceived as welcome.
virtually yours
Gerhard Sittig
--
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: off...@denx.de
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
