[U-Boot] [patch] rm9200 ethernet driver: board-specific quirk?(csb337)

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 13 June 2009 10:54:39 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 10:50 Sat 13 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 13 June 2009 08:28:23 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > On 04:13 Sat 13 Jun     , David Brownell wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 13 June 2009, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > > > The machine_is_X() macros are automatically #ifdeffed in
> > > > > > the header; no size impact.  Read <asm/mach-types.h> ...
> > > > >
> > > > > If I use this pacth on the rm9200ek the u-boot.bin size will
> > > > > increase for nothing
> > > >
> > > > I'm not following you.  The lines are:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MACH_CSB337
> > > > # ifdef machine_arch_type
> > > > #  undef machine_arch_type
> > > > #  define machine_arch_type     __machine_arch_type
> > > > # else
> > > > #  define machine_arch_type     MACH_TYPE_CSB337
> > > > # endif
> > > > # define machine_is_csb337()    (machine_arch_type ==
> > > > MACH_TYPE_CSB337) #else
> > > > # define machine_is_csb337()    (0)
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > ... and similar for EK.  The csb337 config file sets
> > > > CONFIG_MACH_CSB337, and nothing else does.  Result:  on rm9200ek,
> > > > that test becomes if(0), while on csb337 it becomes if (X == X),
> > > > where X == MACH_TYPE_CSB337.
> > > >
> > > > > If I was able to detect dynamicly on which board I will run ok
> > > > > but it's not the case here
> > > > > so please use
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_MACH_xxx
> > > > > #else
> > > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > See above.  There already *IS* such an #ifdef, but it's just not
> > > > cluttering up the guts of that driver.
> > >
> > > you adding MUST have NO size impact on other board
> > >
> > > if we apply you code as it we will increase the size of u-boot for
> > > every rm9200 board that use the ethernet
> >
> > i dont get it.  the CPP expands into if(0) and unless you have a
> > completely shitty compiler, gcc will do dead code elimination on it
> > resulting in the same binary size.
>
> I've seen to much "shitty version" that does not do it correctly
> so I prefer ot avoid the problem

i'm pretty sure we're already relying on this behavior.  so you've got a 
bigger problem that needs addressing (i.e. shit can that compiler) than what 
David is proposing.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090613/79242da8/attachment.pgp