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

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 12:55 Wed 12 Nov     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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
two weak hook to allow board AND soc to print more info

Best Regards,
J.