[U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd_bdinfo: move implementation to arch instead of common

[Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>]

Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
> ---
> apply after my precedent fix for cmd_bdinfo
> 
> Best Regards,
> J.
>  common/Makefile         |    1 -
>  common/cmd_bdinfo.c     |  447 -----------------------------------------------
>  include/common.h        |   15 ++
>  lib_arm/Makefile        |    1 +
>  lib_arm/bdinfo.c        |   69 ++++++++
>  lib_avr32/Makefile      |    1 +
>  lib_avr32/bdinfo.c      |   62 +++++++
>  lib_blackfin/Makefile   |    1 +
>  lib_blackfin/bdinfo.c   |   68 +++++++
>  lib_i386/Makefile       |    1 +
>  lib_i386/bdinfo.c       |   62 +++++++
>  lib_m68k/Makefile       |    1 +
>  lib_m68k/bdinfo.c       |  101 +++++++++++
>  lib_microblaze/Makefile |    1 +
>  lib_microblaze/bdinfo.c |   65 +++++++
>  lib_mips/Makefile       |    1 +
>  lib_mips/bdinfo.c       |   62 +++++++
>  lib_nios/Makefile       |    1 +
>  lib_nios/bdinfo.c       |   61 +++++++
>  lib_nios2/Makefile      |    1 +
>  lib_nios2/bdinfo.c      |   71 ++++++++
>  lib_ppc/Makefile        |    1 +
>  lib_ppc/bdinfo.c        |  141 +++++++++++++++
>  lib_sh/Makefile         |    1 +
>  lib_sh/bdinfo.c         |   62 +++++++
>  lib_sparc/Makefile      |   13 +-
>  lib_sparc/bdinfo.c      |   78 ++++++++

Hi Jean-Christophe,

Is this a good idea?  It takes one centralized mess (that is deprecated, 
but we don't have a good track record of death after deprecation) and 
spreads it out over a bunch of files.  Reminds me of cancer.  :-(

The centralized mess had no duplication of code, but a lot of #ifdef 
ugly.  This patch trades off the removal of most of the #ifdef ugly for 
a lot of duplication.  Which is the lesser of two evils?

If you continue down the fragmentation path, would it work to keep the 
primary bdinfo command (cmd_bdinfo.c) and add two weak function calls to 
it that processor families and boards can hook to add in their extra 
processor- and board-specific stuff?  This may result in some 
rearrangement of the print output (which I don't view as a problem, but 
manual writers might not like it).  It also results in some additional 
obscurity since a processor/board porter needs to understand that there 
is an additional hook to grab for customization.

Thanks,
gvb