Dear Otavio Salvador, > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Babic <sba...@denx.de> wrote: > > Personally I prefer that the function names are the same and the > > implementation itself of the function hides the SOC details. In this > > way, we provide the same interface API to the user (=the board > > maintainer) and to the drivers that are surely shared between the MX28 > > and MX23. > > Sure but the accessing structure is the same for MX233 and MX28 so > makes sense to have it with SOC name. If we have some divertion here a > ifdef will be need to handle.
And fill the files with gazilions of ifdefs, making them unreadable. > I also think we ought to try to split function implementation when it > diverts much (as code of spl_mem_init does spl_mem_init() does not. How? > ) to make it easy to follow > and maintain but this is not done yet. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
