Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2010/12/07 01:21:44: > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 01:07:30 +0100 > Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> wrote: > > > Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote on 2010/12/06 23:49:04: > > > > > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:36:40 +1100 > > > Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > I think it's easier with the function pointers -- if you want to debug > > > > > a hang in that phase of the boot, just have the loop print the address > > > > > of each function before it calls it. > > > > > > > > I agree, but you can't print the address before you have console output. > > > > > > It's usually not too hard to hack something together, even if it's too > > > early for normal console output -- but I'd expect most problems to be > > > either before the initialization list, or after the console is working. > > > > > > > I notice that console_init_f() can be up to 13th in the list of > > > > initialisation > > > > functions - How often is that the case? There seems to be a lot of SDRAM > > > > initialisation prior to getting console output which, to me, seems a > > > > little > > > > strange - surely console output can be achieved earlier (even if it is > > > > using > > > > a hard-coded baud rate) > > > > > > I don't see "a lot of SDRAM initialization" -- there's > > > adjust_sdram_tbs_8xx, but that's really just setting up a couple clock > > > registers (and it's only for 8xx). It's not the real SDRAM init. > > > > Scott, listen to yourself. You are proposing that one should turn the > > code inside out and scan the map files just do this simple thing. > > It looks like you're the one turning this code inside out. :-)
Some days it feels so :) > > No need to scan anything yourself; let the tools (gdb/addr2line/etc) do > it. gdb yes, addr2line/etc no. Needing to resort to external tools when gdb and a sensible code layout would do the trick? No thanks. > > > What is so valuable with func ptrs that you think it is worth it? > > As I said, I think it's at least as easy to debug the way it is. And > you admitted you found the new way uglier... You haven't tried my way yet. Suppose we littered the code with function ptrs, would still feel it is easier using addr2line/etc each and every function call? > > Plus, maybe someday we'll get real section-list initfuncs. One day that hasn't come fore years yet and may never come and probably fixable with weak functions. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
