From: Tom <Tom.Rix@windriver.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] ARM Conditionally compile board LED functions
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:47:29 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AF339E1.9060809@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091105202420.0842A3F6EC@gemini.denx.de>
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Tom Rix,
>
> In message <1257292804-10612-2-git-send-email-Tom.Rix@windriver.com> you wrote:
>> The ARM board LED functions are defined as weak.
>> They add a size overhead if they are not used.
>>
>> Now they are only defined if CONFIG_STATUS_LED is also defined.
>>
>> The arm920t and arm926ejs _start function calls these LED functions
>>
>> bl coloured_LED_init
>> bl red_LED_on
>>
>> In general, what happens is they call into the weak
>> stubs. Only if the cpu/board provides an overriding
>> function do these calls cause anything meaningful to
>> happen.
>>
>> Now this noop case is removed and these LED functions are excuted
>> only when CONFIG_STATUS_LED is defined
>
> I don't get it. We use "weak" to avoid #ifdef's, and you insert new
> #ifdef's? That seems to be the wrong approach to me.
>
The arguments for using weak are getting weak :P
Using weak is less relevant with the #ifdef's
The benefit now is that boards that use the led functions do
not have to define all of them.
I am open to ideas on how to kill weak off completely.
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 ?
Tom
Tom
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-05 20:47 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 [this message]
2009-11-05 22:43 ` Wolfgang Denk
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=4AF339E1.9060809@windriver.com \
--to=tom.rix@windriver.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