From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tom <Tom.Rix@windriver.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:59:48 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] ARM Conditionally compile board
	LED	functions
In-Reply-To: <20091112151729.GA22481@mail.gnudd.com>
References: <4AF360E7.1090906@windriver.com>	<1257292804-10612-1-git-send-email-Tom.Rix@windriver.com>	<1257292804-10612-2-git-send-email-Tom.Rix@windriver.com>	<20091105202420.0842A3F6EC@gemini.denx.de>	<4AF339E1.9060809@windriver.com>	<20091105224328.27F1B3F6EC@gemini.denx.de>
	<20091112151729.GA22481@mail.gnudd.com>
Message-ID: <4AFC30F4.3050509@windriver.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>> I withdraw this patch.
>> I will rethink this and come up with something better.
> 
> I agree weak is better than ifdef. But the led situation on ARM isn't
> really pleasant when you look in lib_arm/board.c .
> 
> When I proposed a simplification of board.c back on Jul 22 ("[RFC]
> arm/board.c: avoid ifdef using weak default functions", I noticed the
> led approach and thought it would need cleanup (for example, by moving
> out of board.c to led.c or something).  However, the patch was
> rejected by JC as he has initcalls as work in progress.
> 
> Since we still missing the initcalls (as missing JC), could that patch
> be reconsidered? I can rebase if there's any interest.
>

Yes I am interested.
Please rebase the RFC patch.

Here is the link to the old RFC
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-July/057273.html

Thanks,
Tom


> /alessandro