From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Denk Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:39:52 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtdparts: Call nand_init() during mtdparts_init(). In-Reply-To: <201010151608.30637.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20101015185902.GA7581@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> <20101015193640.722281365CF@gemini.denx.de> <201010151608.30637.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <20101015213952.CBA531365CF@gemini.denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <201010151608.30637.vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > > @@ -1711,6 +1707,7 @@ int mtdparts_init(void) > > > memset(last_ids, 0, MTDIDS_MAXLEN); > > > memset(last_parts, 0, MTDPARTS_MAXLEN); > > > memset(last_partition, 0, PARTITION_MAXLEN); > > > > > > + nand_init(); > > > initialized = 1; > > > } > > > > I don't like this either. I don't want to see a nand_init() for > > systems that have no NAND at all (not even an empty one). > > i disagree ... sprinkling #ifdef's throughout the code makes it a lot harder > to read, maintain, and validate across multiple configurations. you're > suggesting we do: > #ifdef CONFIG_CMD_NAND > nand_init(); > #endif No, I'm not. I did not suggest anything like that. > it makes more sense to me to hide this in the header (which Scott has done)> > and let the compiler/code optimize dead crap away. Why do we need an explicit call to nand_init() at all? Why cannot the NAND routines check internally if they have been initialized yet, and run nand_init() if and when needed? 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 The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense. - E. W. Dijkstra