[U-Boot] the weirdness with cmd_df.c

[U-Boot] the weirdness with cmd_df.c

[Robert P. J. Day]

   i mentioned this this weekend as well, can someone clarify this?
the source file cmd_df.c looks weird:

U_BOOT_CMD(
         sf,     2,      1,      do_serial_flash,
         "Serial flash sub-system",
         "probe [bus:]cs         - init flash device on given SPI bus and CS")

so the source file "cmd_df.c" allegedly defines a command called "sf",  
which invokes "do_serial_flash", which isn't even defined in that  
source file -- what's defined in that file is "do_df".  i don't see  
"do_serial_flash" defined anywhere in the u-boot source tree.  am i  
just being blind?  i see no reference to that source file in Makefile,  
so i'm guessing it's historical cruft that could be deleted?

rday

[U-Boot] the weirdness with cmd_df.c

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Robert,

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:54:05 -0500, "Robert P. J. Day"
<rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:

>    i mentioned this this weekend as well, can someone clarify this?
> the source file cmd_df.c looks weird:
> 
> U_BOOT_CMD(
>          sf,     2,      1,      do_serial_flash,
>          "Serial flash sub-system",
>          "probe [bus:]cs         - init flash device on given SPI bus and CS")
> 
> so the source file "cmd_df.c" allegedly defines a command called "sf",  
> which invokes "do_serial_flash", which isn't even defined in that  
> source file -- what's defined in that file is "do_df".  i don't see  
> "do_serial_flash" defined anywhere in the u-boot source tree.  am i  
> just being blind?  i see no reference to that source file in Makefile,  
> so i'm guessing it's historical cruft that could be deleted?

do_serial_flash() indeed does not appear anywhere. As for deleting, you
should check which makefile builds cmd_df.c, under which condition,
and if this condition is met in any U-Boot MAKEALL target. If not, just
submit a patch to remove cmd_df.c from the baseline.

BTW: IMO, you should just submit a patch instead of asking. If the patch
is ok, it'll be taken, and you didn't have anything to ask; if the
patch is not OK, the one who NAKs it will tell you why, and you'll get
the answer without asking. :)

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.