On 05/01/11 23:28, Alessandro Rubini wrote: > I'm sorry for sounding rude, it's not my intention. > > I didn't follow closely the discussion about mach_types.h, but I think > we are heading in the wrong direction.
Exactly, this is the problem... Please, read: http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg51265.html > For example, this patch: > >> - if (machine_is_omap_h2()) >> - gd->bd->bi_arch_number = MACH_TYPE_OMAP_H2; >> - else if (machine_is_omap_innovator()) >> - gd->bd->bi_arch_number = MACH_TYPE_OMAP_INNOVATOR; >> - else >> - gd->bd->bi_arch_number = MACH_TYPE_OMAP_GENERIC; >> +#if defined(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_H2) >> + gd->bd->bi_arch_number = MACH_TYPE_OMAP_H2; >> +#elif defined(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP_INNOVATOR) >> + gd->bd->bi_arch_number = MACH_TYPE_OMAP_INNOVATOR; >> +#else >> + gd->bd->bi_arch_number = MACH_TYPE_OMAP_GENERIC; >> +#endif > Since when turning if into ifdef has been a wise move for > maintainability? This never was... I agree, but it at least the board won't break when the mach-types.h is cut down the way explained in this thread, so please, read the thread. I can make another patch which will not convert the if into ifdef (either way is compile time expanded), but introduce machine_is_omap_h2() and machine_is_omap_innovator() macros definition in a board specific .h file. Do you think it will be a better solution? > The commis says: > >> This board used machine_is_* macros for identifying the arch number. >> Use compile time defines instead. > But this already was compile-time: no code generated. But even if it > generated code, I prefer 3 run-time comparisons than 3 compile-time > ifdefs. This is a compile time expanded macros. > Note that mach_types.h, as designed by Russell King, already had > compile time selection, becuase if you selected one machine only (like > in u-boot), one of the "if" becomes compile-time-true and the other > ones become "0". That is the problem... We want to move away from Russell's mach-types.h as it gets cut down to only machines supported by mainline Linux kernel and apparently does not suit U-Boot needs. > I see a lot of discussion about checkpatch compliance and cleanup-only > patches are being accepted; this goes in the opposite direction, for > no reason apparent to me. Please, read the thread... -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
