From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] ARM Conditionally compile board LED functions
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:43:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091105224328.27F1B3F6EC@gemini.denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4AF339E1.9060809@windriver.com>
Dear Tom,
In message <4AF339E1.9060809@windriver.com> you wrote:
>
> The arguments for using weak are getting weak :P
:-P
> Using weak is less relevant with the #ifdef's
But it's the wrong direction your heading. We should get rid of
#ifdef's, not add new ones.
With #ifdef's, you have different versions of the code, which
increases the multitude of configurations that actually need to be
tested. With weak, you have one version of the code only.
> The benefit now is that boards that use the led functions do
> not have to define all of them.
That's just an indication of a broken implementation.
Normally you would provide the weak functions in a central place,
where any board configuration which wants can overwrite them, or not.
> I am open to ideas on how to kill weak off completely.
You got it wrong.
We want to kill off the #ifdef's.
> Has a general led driver layer ever been proposed ?
> Something to convert status led for a mixture of #defines and weak
> symbols to something that had a register function and some
> file_ops ?
We use status LEDs on many boards, without real issues. It's only AT91
which suffers from this mess.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things
we don't know yet." - Ambrose Bierce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-05 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-04 0:00 [U-Boot] ARM LED weak symbols Tom Rix
2009-11-04 0:00 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] ARM Conditionally compile board LED functions Tom Rix
2009-11-04 0:00 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] ARM: fix build error with gcc-4.4.2 about inline function declared weak Tom Rix
2009-11-04 0:34 ` [U-Boot] multiple partitions in mtdparts myuboot at fastmail.fm
2009-11-04 7:14 ` Dieter Kiermaier
2009-11-04 15:35 ` myuboot at fastmail.fm
2009-11-04 15:57 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-05 20:19 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] ARM: fix build error with gcc-4.4.2 about inline function declared weak Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-05 20:39 ` Tom
2009-11-05 22:38 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-10 19:34 ` Tom
2009-11-10 22:45 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-12 0:43 ` [U-Boot] ARM pull request Tom
2009-11-15 21:39 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-11 16:53 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] ARM: fix build error with gcc-4.4.2 about inline function declared weak Gaye Abdoulaye Walsimou
2009-11-05 20:24 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] ARM Conditionally compile board LED functions Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-05 20:47 ` Tom
2009-11-05 22:43 ` Wolfgang Denk [this message]
2009-11-05 23:33 ` Tom
2009-11-12 15:17 ` Alessandro Rubini
2009-11-12 15:59 ` Tom
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=20091105224328.27F1B3F6EC@gemini.denx.de \
--to=wd@denx.de \
--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