Hi, On 22 January 2018 at 09:36, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:57:41PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 07:49:41AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 01:46:46PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 05:29:56PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >> > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 03:07:58PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: >> > > > >> On 16 January 2018 at 01:16, Maxime Ripard >> > > > >> <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > Allow boards and architectures to override the default >> > > > >> > environment lookup >> > > > >> > code by overriding env_get_location. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >> > > > >> > Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lu...@denx.de> >> > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> >> > > > >> > --- >> > > > >> > env/env.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- >> > > > >> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I still don't really understand why this needs to be a weak >> > > > >> function. >> > > > >> If the board knows the priority order, can it not put it into >> > > > >> global_data? We could have a little u8 array of 4 items with a >> > > > >> terminator? >> > > > > >> > > > > Sure that would be simpler, but that would also prevent us from doing >> > > > > "smart" things based on data other than just whether the previous >> > > > > environment is usable. Things based for example on a GPIO state, or a >> > > > > custom algorithm to transition (or duplicate) the environment. >> > > > >> > > > In that case the board could read the GPIO state, or the algorithm, >> > > > and then set up the value. >> > > > >> > > > Basically I am saying it could set up the priority order in advance of >> > > > it being needed, rather than having a callback. >> > > >> > > Aren't we kind of stuck here? >> > > >> > > On the previous iterations, we already discussed this and Tom >> > > eventually told he was in favour of __weak functions, and the >> > > discussion stopped there. I assumed you were ok with it. >> > > >> > > I'd really want to move forward on that. This is something that is >> > > really biting us *now* and I'd hate to miss yet another merge window >> > > because of debates like this. >> > >> > Yes, I think this is where we want things to be weak, with a reasonable >> > default. If we start to see that "everyone" does the same thing by and >> > large we can re-evaluate. >> >> Ok. >> >> I've fixed the bug I mentionned the other day on IRC, should I send a PR? > > Lets give Simon a chance to provide any other feedback here, or another > argument to convince me that no, we don't want to have this abstracted > by a weak function but instead ..., thanks!
I suspect there is a reason why this is better than what I propose. Perhaps when I try it out it will become apparent. So let's go ahead and revisit later if we have new information. Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
