From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@ge.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [RFC][PATCH 1/1] Add board_eth_init() function
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:56:07 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47E92097.1000506@ge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1206459104.7589.226.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se>
Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 10:57 -0400, Ben Warren wrote:
>> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 10:22 -0400, Ben Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stefan Roese wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday 22 March 2008, Ben Warren wrote:
[snip]
>>>>> Using Markus's idea, why not use a cpu (platform) specific *and* a board
>>>>> specific init function, both with an empty weak alias in the common eth.c
>>>>> code:
>>>>>
>>>>> cpu_eth_init(bis);
>>>>> board_eth_init(bis);
>>>>>
>>>> I thought about this some more, and the problem is that cpu_eth_init() and board_eth_init()
>>>> are mutually exclusive, with board_eth_init() having a higher priority.
>>>> I think the following will work, but would appreciate some feedback.
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> int board_eth_init(bd_t *bis) __attribute(weak);
>>>> int cpu_eth_init(bd_t *bis) __attribute(weak);
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> if (board_eth_init)
>>>> board_eth_init(bis);
>>>> else if (cpu_eth_init)
>>>> cpu_eth_init(bis);
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>> This gets rid of the pointless aliases and gives precedence to the board-specific initialization.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Ben
>>>>
>>> I think you must enable full relocation, CONFIG_RELOC_FIXUP_WORKS, to
>>> make the "if (board_eth_init)" work. This is just a guess though.
>>>
>>> Jocke
>>>
>>>
>> Nothing a little testing can't figure out.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Ben
>
> You could do too:
> if (!board_eth_init(bis))
> cpu_eth_init(bis);
>
> Jocke
Per an earlier discussion on how weak functions are implemented, these
are not equivalent. Functions marked "weak" *without* a weak
implementation become NULL pointers. The code
if (board_eth_init)
board_eth_init(bis);
else if (cpu_eth_init)
cpu_eth_init(bis);
uses that knowledge to see if the weak function board_eth_init() exists
and then calls it if it does. If it doesn't exist, it sees if
cpu_eth_init() exists and calls it if it does.
Your counter proposal assumes that a weak function board_eth_init()
*does* exist and uses the returned result as the condition of executing
cpu_eth_init() (assuming it also exists).
If you define a weak function that simply returns failure, your
alternative is close, but still not the same because an overridden
(*real*) board_eth_init() could return failure too, in which case it
will (probably erroneously) execute cpu_eth_init(). Beyond that, if
cpu_eth_init() doesn't exist (doesn't have a default weak function
defined), the call to it will go *SPLAT*.
HTH,
gvb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-25 15:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-22 2:46 [U-Boot-Users] [RFC][PATCH 1/1] Add board_eth_init() function Ben Warren
2008-03-22 5:03 ` Shinya Kuribayashi
[not found] ` <f8328f7c0803220505n39c9ddb5sf9c9cf037b8f4665@mail.gmail.com>
2008-03-22 12:07 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-22 15:55 ` Vlad Lungu
2008-03-23 6:19 ` Shinya Kuribayashi
2008-03-26 10:00 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-26 11:39 ` Shinya Kuribayashi
2008-03-26 12:41 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-26 14:15 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-26 14:27 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-22 6:31 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-22 9:59 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-03-22 10:14 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-22 11:35 ` Markus Klotzbücher
2008-03-22 14:01 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-03-22 15:43 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-25 7:04 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-25 11:11 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-25 14:22 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-25 14:41 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2008-03-25 14:57 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-25 15:31 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2008-03-25 15:56 ` Jerry Van Baren [this message]
2008-03-25 16:59 ` Joakim Tjernlund
2008-03-25 14:43 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-25 16:17 ` Andy Fleming
2008-03-25 16:33 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-25 17:04 ` Andy Fleming
2008-03-25 17:53 ` Ben Warren
2008-03-26 10:06 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-26 10:14 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-26 10:25 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-26 10:34 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-26 11:06 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-26 11:43 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-26 12:19 ` Haavard Skinnemoen
2008-03-26 12:39 ` Stefan Roese
2008-03-23 0:06 ` [U-Boot-Users] [OT] Using MTD to manipulate CFI flash on PCI boards? David Hawkins
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=47E92097.1000506@ge.com \
--to=gerald.vanbaren@ge.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