[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] arm: add CONFIG_MACH_TYPE option and documentation

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Igor,

Le 13/07/2011 07:52, Igor Grinberg a écrit :
> Hi Albert,
>
> On 07/08/11 00:06, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>> On 07/07/11 20:46, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>> Le 07/07/2011 18:51, Igor Grinberg a écrit :
>>>
>>>>>> If we have this option and it is documented, then any new board can use it
>>>>>> instead of thinking (although it is simple) where and how to dereference
>>>>>> the bi_arch_number.
>>>>> Not sure I get you there. Can you elaborate on a more precise example that would show the benefits of it?
>>>> For example, if you think of Christopher's patch (ARM: Warn when the machine ID isn't set.),
>>>> If you need Christopher's patch, then there are cases when the machid is not set, right?
>>>> When someone gets this warning, he thinks: "Ah, I forgot the machid!" and then
>>>> goes to fix the code, but again he thinks, where is the best place to put it?
>>>> For us, it is trivial, that it should be in board_init() function, but for newbies, it is not that trivial.
>>>> With this patch, you get the explanation and also a place to put the machid definition.
>>>> With this patch, you just define the configuration "variable" and the whole thing will be done for you.
>>>> Another example would be the board/nvidia/*, the code is shared as much as possible,
>>>> and the mach_type is set in the common code. That is something I would expect to be done
>>>> for all ARM boards, not just for nvidia...
>>> I see your point.
>>>
>>> Now the issue I foresee is that this commonalization has benefits only for boards which currently set their bi_arch_number in board_init_f(),
>> Vast majority of boards set their bi_arch_number in board_init().
>> I went through all the boards and there is only one that set it in board_early_init_f()
>> and several that do this in checkboard().
>>
>> This makes me think of v2 of this patch which will set the bi_arch_number in board_init_f()
>> just before the init_sequence[] array is run.
>>
>>> but has no incentive -- that's a code that will be used only in a few places and could stay that way for quite long, because boards that will not adhere to it will still build unchanged.
>> Well, I don't like to force people do something by breaking their builds...
>> In general, I think that any change should not break any existing code (at least not on purpose).
>> At least, this is how it works in Linux.
>>
>>> IOW, there is no benefit for e.g. ED Mini V2, to use CONFIG_MACH_TYPE, so why would it? Thus instead of simplifying and commonalizing, this feature will *add* to the code base complexity.
>>>
>>> Unless the goal is to add this macro *and* change all related board codes in the same patchset? I don't see it as feasible either.
>> Well, I can do the change board/* wide, but it will take some time to accomplish.
>> Also, we still don't have an exact list of boards for removal, so I'd like to wait until
>> the removal takes place, so there will be less boards to consider.
>>
>>> Any suggestion for ensuring adoption of the feature wherever it can be used?
>> Currently, I can think of:
>> 1) Changing all relevant boards to use it - will eliminate "bad" examples.
>> 2) Pointing to the use of CONFIG_MACH_TYPE during code review.
>> 3) Introduce one more config option, like CONFIG_DYNAMIC_MACH_TYPE
>> and change the patch to something like:
>> #ifndef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_MACH_TYPE
>> bi_arch_number = CONFIG_MACH_TYPE;
>> #endif
>>
>> If we decide to go for 3), it would integrate nicely with Christopher's patch.
>
> So, what will it be?
> If it will be 1 and 2, then I'd like to get this patch in, so I can start working on 1.
>
> If it will be 3, then I want to make the change and resubmit,
> hoping for current merge window...

I don't think two macros are needed for this. Either the board config 
file targets a single Linux machine ID and it defines CONFIG_MACH_TYPE, 
or it targets several and somewhere in the board init code it sets 
bi_arch_number to one of some MACH_TYPE_xxxx values without defining 
CONFIG_MACH_TYPE, so this one macro is enough and ...DYNAMIC... would be 
redundant.

Solution 1 would be the most correct IMO but is a lot of work for you as 
a submitter -- to be clear, I understand it as changing *every* board 
that sets bi_arch_number in board code to setting it in (lib and) config 
file. As much as I like it, I myself would hesitate to take on such an 
effort, so I will not force it upon you.

Pragmatism against perfection: let's go for 2, then. Change the boards 
you intended to change, and from now on reviewers for any change to a 
board should point out the move to CONFIG_MACH_TYPE as mandatory.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.