From: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4] Fix board init code to use a valid C runtime environment
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:43:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1447681397.6240.16.camel@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151116143425.1384e63e@lilith>
Hi Albert,
On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 14:34 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hello Alexey,
>
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:12:15 +0000, Alexey Brodkin
> <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com> wrote:
> > Hi Albert,
> > >
> > > - /* Allocate and zero GD, update SP */
> > > - mov %r0, %sp
> > > - bl board_init_f_mem
> > > -
> > > + /* Get reserved area size, update SP and FP */
> > > + bl board_init_f_get_reserve_size
> > > /* Update stack- and frame-pointers */
> >
> > I think we don't need to mention SP/FP update in comments twice here.
> > I.e. either strip ", update SP and FP" from your introduced comment or
> > which I really like more remove following line with comment entirely:
> > ---------->8----------
> > /* Update stack- and frame-pointers */
> > ---------->8----------
>
> Not sure where you see two SP+FP 'update' comments here; probably
> you're referring to the 'setup' comment on line 53 and the 'update'
> one on line 59. If that is what you meant, I tink these comments are
> different and deserve staying both...
Ok, that's what I have after your patch application:
---------->8----------
/* Setup stack- and frame-pointers */
mov %sp, CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR
mov %fp, %sp
/* Get reserved area size, update SP and FP */
bl board_init_f_get_reserve_size
/* Update stack- and frame-pointers */ <-- that's already mentioned 2 lines above
sub %sp, %sp, %r0
mov %fp, %sp
---------->8----------
> ... However, these comments also pretty much just paraphrase the code
> which follows them and thus serve little purpose; they could be
> reworded to show less of what is being done and more of why it is being
> done:
>
> - the "Update stack- and frame-pointer" comment could be turned into
> "Allocate reserved size on stack and adjust frame pointer
> accordingly", and
>
> - the "Setup stack- and frame-pointers" comment could be turned into
> "Establish C runtime stack and frame".
>
> Opinions?
Totally agree, care to implement it?
-Alexey
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-16 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-15 18:25 [U-Boot] [PATCH v4] Fix board init code to use a valid C runtime environment Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-15 18:31 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-16 13:12 ` Alexey Brodkin
2015-11-16 13:34 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-16 13:43 ` Alexey Brodkin [this message]
2015-11-16 14:15 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2015-11-16 14:22 ` Alexey Brodkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1447681397.6240.16.camel@synopsys.com \
--to=alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox