Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 2010/12/06 23:36:21: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message > <ofee7adeea.47556dd1-onc12577f1.006faf8d-c12577f1.0071c...@transmode.se> you > wrote: > > > > > This is indeed much uglier. What exactly is your problem with > > > debugging the existing code? > > > > Whenever I screw up so that one of the init funcs crashes, often without > > any trace on the RS232 port you don't know which one. Single stepping > > Well, we turn on the serial ports as early as possible, so ther eis > only a pretty small collection that is candidate for such a situation.
But that won't help much. When you don't have any output it can be any reason. I really want to see where it breaks down. That will tell me more about what I did wrong earlier. It is easy to guess where when you a playing with these function, but when you are trying to understand why your latest relocation fixes doesn't work, it is a different game. > > > though the loop is cumbersome and not easy as BDI tends to > > flush the cache when it stops so you loose your stack. > > Does it? On which architecture / processor is this? MPC8321 and BDI2000. I have to play games with some internal BDI command called SAP. Maybe they have fixed this in later models? > > > The other way is to look up one those funs and set a BP there and hope > > for the best. Then repeat with the next function and so on. > > Compare that with just setting a BP in the new init_sequence(), it is > > fast and easy to move around. > > ...but ugly to read. And if you really want to introduce this style, > it has to be done for all architectures, as I want to see this code to > become common across architectures. That is the next issue, lets not stray from the path .. > > > I don't think you have been chasing bugs in this area for a long time, > > if you had, you would appreciate how easy it is with functions > > compared with a bunch of function ptrs. > > I haven't, lately, that's true, or when I had, I always knew pretty > well where I had to expect the issues. But I've been there before, > many, many times. And you never found it annoying when you hit these function ptrs? > > > I don't think this is much uglier, just a bit, but far more > > useful and I have a hard time buying into "beautiful trumps usefulness". > > I'm not convinced that your code is actually a general improvement. I > understand that it's useful for you, and your style of debugging. > If you are really hanging in this area, then maybe a debug() is more > prowerfull - and less invasive. Now you are proposing that I instrument the code, much like Scott and his print of address idea. This is exactly what I want to avoid as it would probably have to be adapted from case to case and there is always the case when there is no output and then I am back to square zero again. The argument that it is uglier alone is not a very good one. Image the roles were reversed, I am sure you would dismiss me as "less beautiful" is really not an argument alone. Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
