Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 30/11/2009 22:02:44: > > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message <OF9F9C7491.8E6AB1CE-ONC125767E.00448FDA-C125767E. > 00453...@transmode.se> you wrote: > > Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 27/11/2009 21:18:28: > > > I am not convinced yet that the new code is actually an improvement. > > > Changing the array of pointers into a list of function calls does not > > > solve any of the real issues we have with the init seuqnece - like > > > that some board need the PCI initialization early, and others later, > > > etc. > > > > Somewhat offtopic, but you could add a few weak empty dummy functions > > at strategic places in the board_X funcs. Any board that > > needs some extra init sequence could define the appropriate function > > which will replace the weak one. > > Yes. And all boards that don't need it will suffer from the increased > memory footprint.
Sure, but I won't adding these extra call sites as an array of fptrs also add size? Since the new function as smaller than the current list, I would not be surprised if my function idea is smaller in total. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something? I am just illustrating one way, one that will allow boards better control too as then can define this function as they like/need. Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
