[U-Boot] [PATCH v4] Fix board init code to use a valid C runtime environment

[Alexey Brodkin]

Hi Albert,

On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 15:15 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Hello Alexey,
> 
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:43:19 +0000, Alexey Brodkin
> <Alexey.Brodkin at synopsys.com> wrote:
> > Hi Albert,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 14:34 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > > Hello Alexey,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:12:15 +0000, Alexey Brodkin
> > > <Alexey.Brodkin at synopsys.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Albert,
> > 
> > > > >  
> > > > > -	/* Allocate and zero GD, update SP */
> > > > > -	mov	%r0, %sp
> > > > > -	bl	board_init_f_mem
> > > > > -
> > > > > +	/* Get reserved area size, update SP and FP */
> > > > > +	bl	board_init_f_get_reserve_size
> > > > >  	/* Update stack- and frame-pointers */
> > > > 
> > > > I think we don't need to mention SP/FP update in comments twice here.
> > > > I.e. either strip ", update SP and FP" from your introduced comment or
> > > > which I really like more remove following line with comment entirely:
> > > > ---------->8----------
> > > > 	/* Update stack- and frame-pointers */
> > > > ---------->8----------
> > > 
> > > Not sure where you see two SP+FP 'update' comments here; probably
> > > you're referring to the 'setup' comment on line 53 and the 'update'
> > > one on line 59. If that is what you meant, I tink these comments are
> > > different and deserve staying both...
> > 
> > Ok, that's what I have after your patch application:
> > 
> > ---------->8----------
> > 	/* Setup stack- and frame-pointers */
> > 	mov	%sp, CONFIG_SYS_INIT_SP_ADDR
> > 	mov	%fp, %sp
> > 
> > 	/* Get reserved area size, update SP and FP */
> > 	bl	board_init_f_get_reserve_size
> > 	/* Update stack- and frame-pointers */  <-- that's already mentioned 2 lines above
> > 	sub	%sp, %sp, %r0
> > 	mov	%fp, %sp
> > ---------->8----------
> 
> My bad, I'd missed that one. I'll turn
> 
>  	/* Get reserved area size, update SP and FP */
> 
> Into
> 
>  	/* Get reserved area size */
> 
> > > ... However, these comments also pretty much just paraphrase the code
> > > which follows them and thus serve little purpose; they could be
> > > reworded to show less of what is being done and more of why it is being
> > > done:
> > > 
> > > - the "Update stack- and frame-pointer" comment could be turned into
> > >   "Allocate reserved size on stack and adjust frame pointer
> > >   accordingly", and
> > > 
> > > - the "Setup stack- and frame-pointers" comment could be turned into
> > >   "Establish C runtime stack and frame".
> > > 
> > > Opinions?
> > 
> > Totally agree, care to implement it?
> 
> That, and the removal of the repetition. v5 in approach.
> 
> > -Alexey
> 
> Amicalement,

Thanks for doing that!

-Alexey