[U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd_bdinfo: move implementation to arch instead of common

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> > Is this a good idea?  It takes one centralized mess (that is deprecated,
>> > but we don't have a good track record of death after deprecation) and
>> > spreads it out over a bunch of files.  Reminds me of cancer.  :-(
>> >
>> > The centralized mess had no duplication of code, but a lot of #ifdef
>> > ugly.  This patch trades off the removal of most of the #ifdef ugly for
>> > a lot of duplication.  Which is the lesser of two evils?
>> >
>> > If you continue down the fragmentation path, would it work to keep the
>> > primary bdinfo command (cmd_bdinfo.c) and add two weak function calls to
>> > it that processor families and boards can hook to add in their extra
>> > processor- and board-specific stuff?  This may result in some
>> > rearrangement of the print output (which I don't view as a problem, but
>> > manual writers might not like it).  It also results in some additional
>> > obscurity since a processor/board porter needs to understand that there
>> > is an additional hook to grab for customization.
>>
>> i think the split version proposed is a lot nicer than the current
>> one, but going the route of having an arch hook would be best.  i dont
>> think we even need a weak function ... force every arch to implement
>> *something*.
>
> It's the case
> The idea is to allow soc and board to allow them to print more info

so you have one hard arch hook and one weak board hook.  every
lib_<arch>/ needs to implement a bdinfo hook.
-mike