On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD < plagn...@jcrosoft.com> wrote:
> On 08:41 Sat 23 May , Ben Warren wrote: > > Jean-Christophe, > > > > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > > <plagn...@jcrosoft.com> wrote: > > > > apply to at91sam9263ek > > > > this will result to reduce the size of 2212 bytes > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD < > plagn...@jcrosoft.com> > > --- > > board/atmel/at91sam9263ek/at91sam9263ek.c | 12 ++++++------ > > include/netdev.h | 12 ------------ > > net/eth.c | 16 ---------------- > > 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > <snip> > > > > - /* Try board-specific initialization first. If it fails or > > isn't > > - * present, try the cpu-specific initialization */ > > - if (board_eth_init(bis) < 0) > > - cpu_eth_init(bis); > > > > Good idea, but your implementation is flawed. It's critically > important > > that the prioritization of board ethernet initialization over CPU > ethernet > > initialization be preserved. Your idea doesn't handle that (at least > that > > I can see). > with this only patch yes, but I'm preparing a full implementation that will > If I understand correctly the board_eth_init is unsed to overwrite the > default > cpu_eth_init by passing different parameter > > with a device/driver model this will be handle correctly > I'm not really sure why you used this one as an example, then, since it doesn't provide any obvious benefit. As far as I can tell, the only benefit of using the Linux-style grouping of initialization calls is to control flow during boot-up, and U-boot already handles this pretty well IMHO. I think in U-boot it will only make the code harder to read and understand. I'd be interested in seeing a different example, though. regards, Ben
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
