Dear Wolfgang Denk, > Dear Marek Vasut, > > In message <1346453055-30888-1-git-send-email-ma...@denx.de> you wrote: > > Clean up a few things in STDIO. Mostly, don't export structures directly, > > but introduce some kind of accessors if needed and remove dead code. > > > > NOTE: I'm still working on the "compile tested on 2 different > > architectures" > > > > part. I'll keep you posted about that. I'd be glad for a review > > though. I'd hate to pull in logic errors, especially into such > > critical code. > > > > NOTE2: Cross-posting cover to DM list, so I get feedback from those guys. > > > > Marek Vasut (6): > > stdio: dm: Murder dead code in console.c > > stdio: dm: Add accessors to stdio_devices[] > > stdio: dm: Make stdio_devices[] local > > stdio: dm: Add stdio_fd_to_name() call > > stdio: dm: Use stdio_fd_to_name() call to localize stdio_names > > stdio: dm: Optimize stdio_print_current_devices() > > I can't make heads nor tails from this patch series. > > 1) It was posted to the U-Boot list, but all patches carry a "dm:" in > the subject, which does not appear to make sense to me, as at > least some of the changes have no relation to DM work at all.
They very distantly are. I really needed to clean up the STDIO a bit to familiarize myself with the code I'm soon going to break. But all in all, I think exporting structures for others to access them as they wish isn't the best of ideas. Therefore I encapsulated these into the file and added accessors. The direction these patches take with STDIO and console.c stuff in U-Boot is such that applying proper encapsulation will allow easier conversion to the driver model stuff later. Yet I'm getting there with really small steps as I need to be very careful here. > 2) It appears this might be a RFC series, so why isn't it maked as > such in the Subject: ? It's not RFC, why would it be RFC? I'm still working on the "NOTE" part though. > 3) It appears that some code gets added - what is the impact of these > changes on the memory footprint? So far I tested this on M28: Before: text data bss dec hex filename 415705 7688 288708 712101 adda5 ./u-boot 11754 788 12 12554 310a ./spl/u-boot-spl After: text data bss dec hex filename 415590 7676 288700 711966 add1e ./u-boot 11794 788 12 12594 3132 ./spl/u-boot-spl As you can see, the SPL grows a bit, yet U-Boot shrunk. Tested with Debian GCC 4.7.1 . > 4) Besides the dead code removal - what exactly is the purpose of > these patches? Mostly see 1). > Best regards, > > Wolfgang Denk Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
