On 09/21/2012 04:51 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 04:46:54PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> >> >> Now that get_device_and_partition() always calls >> get_partition_info() when disk.c is compiled, we must always >> compile the function, rather than ifdef it away. >> >> The implementation must be conditional based on CONFIG_CMD_* >> etc., since that's what e.g. part_dos.c uses to ifdef out >> get_partition_info_dos(); CONFIG_DOS_PARTITION can be enabled >> even without those commands being enabled. >> >> Technically, this change is required before Rob's "disk/part: >> introduce get_device_and_partition" patch. However, at least when >> the compiler optimizer is turned on, it isn't required before >> then in practice, since get_device_and_partition() calls >> get_dev(), which is stubbed out in disk.c under exactly the same >> conditions that get_partition_info() is not compiled, and hence >> the compiler never generates code for the call to the missing >> function. However, in my later patch "disk: >> get_device_and_partition() "auto" partition and cleanup", the >> optimizer doesn't succeed at this, and may attempt to reference >> the undefined function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> --- v2: Add >> CONFIG_CMD_* etc. ifdefs around the implementation. >> >> Rob, I wonder if you shouldn't squash this into your series. >> Then, I'll need to rebase mine on your again since this causes a >> few nasty conflicts with my series. > > I _really_ want to see incremental changes. It's one of the good > practices of the kernel folks and I'd like to see us do it as well > as much as we can.
OK, well in that case, you can just apply the patch standalone before you apply Rob's series then. I think we'll both need to rebase to avoid conflict issues those - e.g. I edited the function that got moved in my patch series and had to manually re-apply the change to the new code location after I created this patch. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
