Hi Uwe,
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 09:04:09PM +0200, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> > > Is it worth to introduce a common function
> > >
> > > void __noreturn sensiblename(unsigned long clkctrl_reset_offset,
> > > unsigned long unused) {
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > and make the reset_cpu functions for imx23 and imx28 just call
> > > sensiblename()?
> >
> > Refer "http://www.spinics.net/lists/u-boot-v2/msg07681.html";
>
> I don't see how this answers my question. To combine both answers, put
> sensiblename into arch/arm/mach-mxs/common.c and the imx23 and the imx28
> specific call to sensiblename into imx23.c and imx28.c respectively.
What would be the advantage? You add one more indirection but almost the same
amount of code.
jbe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Juergen Beisert |
Linux Solutions for Science and Industry | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
