On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > 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.
No; if we have too much difference we can move the structs to another header and keep one to "include the right" providing the layer and hidding it. Am I missing something? >> 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? The are code there would need many ifdefs to get working fine for both; this could be split on spl_mem_mx233.c and spl_mem_mx28.c and spl_mem.c doing the generic part and calling the specifics. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: ota...@ossystems.com.br http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
