[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Support for csb535fs / i.MX21 LiteKit.

[Grant Likely]

On 3/1/07, Txema Lopez <tlopez at aotek.es> wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
> > I know that slightly modified duplicate code is common in u-boot, so
> > this is not an critique on your work, but I'd really like to move away
> > from this mode of operation.  Duplicating the original file and
> > modifying it is certainly the easiest way to add support for a new
>
> And It makes the code more readable. It's the pro.

I disagree; adding more code volume makes it harder to find stuff.

> > 10 times and a bug is found in it at a later date; the bug fix needs
> > to be applied to 10 files, not one.
>
> Yes, It's the con. But, how many times does it happen?.

Very frequently

> > Unfortunately, this situation is messy because the imx is in
> > cpu/arm920t and imx32 is in cpu/arm926ejs.  It probably requires the
> > creation of a new directory for the common imx soc bits, but where?
> > Perhaps under lib_arm/imx?
> >
> Ummm, lib_arm/imx?. I think this mixes up concepts.
> Why not to decouple the arm cores and the SoC code?. For example:
>           cpu/arm/cores/arm926ejs
>           cpu/arm/soc/imx

That's an idea too.  I don't really know where it should go and I'm
throwing out ideas.

To put it in cpu/arm/soc/* I think will require changes to the config
system.  If I understand correctly, the Makefiles assume the CPU
support code is one level below the 'cpu' directory.  I don't know
what the impact is of moving it deeper.

> Perhaps, there was a discussion about this in U-Boot and I'm talking
> nonsense.

Not that I know of; this is a new discussion.

> Anyway, you are the mainteiner so you have the last say. ;-)

Nope, I'm just a reviewer.  :-)

g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195