Hi Andrew, On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:16:59PM +0000, Andrew Ruder wrote: >> On 10/20/2014 03:00 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> > So, on new platforms we call dm9000_initialize with the right IO/DATA >> > locations for the given device, yes? I think I'd rather update everyone >> > else to call things the right and new way, rather than work-around >> > supporting both. >> >> The expectation is that new platforms would move over to >> dm9000_initialize_ex(), dm9000_initialize() just being a shim to use >> what used to be #define'd in the board config.h for backwards >> compatibility with older boards. >> >> There's really 3 options that I fought with: >> >> 1.) Change dm9000_initialize() to dm9000_initialize(x, y, z). PATCH #3 >> then also includes changes to all of the various boards. >> >> 2.) Add dm9000_initialize_ex(x, y, z), make dm9000_initialize() call >> dm9000_initiailize_ex(x, y, z). No boards need to change. This is what >> I chose. >> >> 3.) Hybrid approach, do #2, make another patch (#4) that moves >> everything over to dm9000_initialize_ex(x, y, z) while renaming it to >> dm9000_initialize(x, y, z). Seems more round-about than #1 with the >> same end-result, but sometimes I feel like it is a little easier to >> review the meat of this change (#3) without it also dealing with tons of >> board churn. >> >> Thoughts? > > How about step 1 is checkpatch re-formatting only, step 2 is > dm9000_initalize(x, y, z) but y/z aren't used, step 3 is passing around > 'dev' and step 4 is the rest of the changes (so that y/z are used, if I > follow all of the logic right). This splits the whitespace/etc churn > out from everything else, then makes it easy enough to review that > boards are converted right to the new logic.
What ever became of this series? Thanks, -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
