[U-Boot-Users] New and updated patches sent to U-Boot maintainer

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Keith,

in message <OF30CE6C3A.DAA104F1-ON072571E6.008079A0-072571E6.00823609 at mck.us.ray.com> you wrote:
>
> > Can you please update your patches using a current code base? I get a
> > lot of rejects when applying your patches.
> 
> OK. I was hoping I could get away with not having to do that.  Sorry!

Ummm... no. If new submitted patches  throw  too  many  and  too  big
rejects I will not spend the effort for you.

> > * Clean up the Coding style (trailing white space in  65  files,  C++
> >   comments, indentation not by tabs, trailing empty lines, etc.)
> 
> I'll run all the sources through GNU indent.

I'm not sure if this is a good idea.

Please see the "Coding Standards" section in the README.

> Perhaps the current git head does not have these statements in the
> Xilinx code in ./board/xilinx/xilinx_enet, for example.  I'll check
> tonight.  My source base does have them, though, but my code is a little 
> old.

Please don't refer to the existing xilinx code as  an  example  -  it
contains enough of problems.

> > * Please clean up the function headers and comments. Something like 
> this:
...
> I tend to agree, but this is the Xilinx provided driver code.  I can take 
> not credit for
> it's quality :)

But you submit it for U-Boot. The Linux kernel folks have a long
tradition of rejecting poor code, and I am tempted to do the same
here.

> BTW, Some of this code is already in U-Boot

Yes, and I am angry with myself that I didn't reject this when it was
submitted. It just escaped my attention.

> My plan was to put it into a common location after which anyone else using 
> the code
> in ./boards/xilinx could switch over to the code in ./drivers

Is this the only change, i. e. no improvement in the quality of the
code?

> The idea was to use the driver source code as-is to avoid having to
> re-invent the wheel.  I would expect that as more Xilinx FPGA based
> boards are added, the percentage use of the Xilinx driver code would 
> increase.

We just discussed this in another case: I don;t  want  to  have  dead
code  in  U-Boot,  and I guess that 90% of what you're adding here is
just code bloat and things that are not needed or referenced  by  any
of  the supported boards. But given the poor quality of the code it's
time-consuming to check even this.

I'd really appreciate if you could spend  some  efforts  on  cleaning
this up and bringing it into a more readable / usable form.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
You can do this in a number of ways.     IBM chose to do all of them.
Why do you find that funny?        -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350