[U-Boot] [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] crazy: Sort u_boot_cmd at runtime

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

Dear Wolfgang Denk,

> Dear Marek Vasut,
> 
> In message <201207282039.34518.marex@denx.de> you wrote:
> > > Seems incomplete in several aspects:
> > Below the section:
> > 
> > * NOTE * THIS PATCH IS CRAZY
> 
> Then what is actually the purpose of such a posting?  Just dumping
> unsorted thoughts to community?

I'd prefer to get some feedback, you know ...

> You are experienced enough to know what would be needed for a
> semi-clean patch, even if it's "just for RFC"...

If you mean droping the ascii art ... well, yes.

But for draft patch, I'd like to actually see further ideas.

> > There are a few notes. I'd actually like to know if this approach is
> > correct at all, it might break on some crazy configurations or such.
> 
> Define "correct".

If there's not some obvious flub in the code. If this kind of abuse of CPP is 
correct or not.

> It may be possible - but what would be the advantage?

The list of commands will be already sorted.

> Which problem does it solve?

Optimization, nothing else.

> In which way is it better than the current code?

It's a bit faster.

> > > 1) what about all the non-ARM architecures and the board specific
> > > 
> > >    linker scripts?
> > 
> > - This patch affects only arm926t, obviously to make it proper, every
> > 
> >   linkerscript would have to be adjusted
> > 
> > Which sucks, since there're a lot of them. But it can probably be
> > automated.
> 
> Actually I doubt it makes sense at all.

It actually does ... but not in such a plain context.

I did this patch because we want the driver lists sorted. So I did this research 
and implemented it on the command list. I wanted to gather some feedback on if 
this actually can be done in such a way or if there'll be problems with 
toolchains maybe. Or any other issues.

> I envision a situation where some "pluggable" code (say, a standalone
> application, or some form of loadable module whatever) can add new
> commands - it would be nice if these would still appear in sorted
> order, but this cannot be done at compile-time.

Certainly ... but we can keep a separate runtime table for these added commands.

> So please explain which actual problem you are rying to solve.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

Best regards,
Marek Vasut