From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 17:07:04 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/7] dfu: MMC specific routines for DFU
	operation
In-Reply-To: <20120703223343.GD15962@bill-the-cat>
References: <1341308291-14663-1-git-send-email-l.majewski@samsung.com>
	<201207040001.27997.marex@denx.de>
	<20120703220654.GC15962@bill-the-cat>
	<201207040031.14737.marex@denx.de>
	<20120703223343.GD15962@bill-the-cat>
Message-ID: <4FF37B18.4030209@wwwdotorg.org>
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

On 07/03/2012 04:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:31:14AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> Dear Tom Rini,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>> +	debug("%s: %s 0x%p\n", __func__, cmd_buf, cmd_buf);
>>>>>>> +	run_command(cmd_buf, 0);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Holy Moly ... can we not make this into simple calls to those
>>>>>> subsystems ? Instead invoking command is crazy ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Are they really simple?  There's a few other places we do this, and so
>>>>> long as it's documented that DFU depends on CONFIG_FAT_WRITE for
>>>>> writing to fat and so forth.
>>>>
>>>> Well ain't it easier to call fat_write() or similar?
>>>
>>> Assuming that most of the logic in do_fat_fswrite is needed, no.  And I
>>> think a good portion of it is, at first glance at least.
>>
>> Abstracting it out into a function won't cut it?
> 
> My inclination would be to say that seems a bit sillier than just using
> run_command(...) to call the existing command.

Abstracting into a function definitely means the compiler will be able
to type-check all the arguments to the function. Is the same true using
run_command; I assume everything gets serialized to an array of strings
and hence any validation is deferred until run-time then?