On Sunday 08 January 2012 12:42:02 Simon Glass wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 December 2011 16:08:05 Simon Glass wrote:
> >> --- a/include/bootstage.h
> >> +++ b/include/bootstage.h
> >>
> >> +static inline ulong bootstage_mark(enum bootstage_id id)
> >> {
> >> - show_boot_progress(-val);
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS
> >> + show_boot_progress(id);
> >> +#endif
> >> + return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static inline ulong bootstage_error(enum bootstage_id id)
> >> +{
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS
> >> + show_boot_progress(-id);
> >> +#endif
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >
> > why isn't show_boot_progress() just a stub when CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS
> > isn't defined ? then you don't have to protect the call sites.
>
> show_boot_progress() has been part of U-Boot for a while. Quite a lot
> of boards define this function with the expectation that they can turn
> CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS on and off independently. So If I do what
> you suggest I will break that expectation.
>
> One fix would be to bracket all show_boot_progress() function
> implementations in the boards with CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS, but I
> haven't done that.it seemed like part of your clean up series was to merge show_boot_progress() into your new bootstage framework. in which case, we have full control over it now, and ifdef bracketing for it should go away ... -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
