On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:58 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:31:39PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>> All of the instances of imx*_boot_save_loc() do exactly the same thing with
>> the only difference being SoC-specific imx*_get_boot_source
>> call. Convert the code into a generic function taking function pointer
>> + a macro to take care of the boilerplate.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-imx/boot.c | 85 ++++++++++--------------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>>
>> +imx_boot_save_loc(void (*get_boot_source)(enum bootsource *, int *))
>> {
>> enum bootsource src = BOOTSOURCE_UNKNOWN;
>> int instance = BOOTSOURCE_INSTANCE_UNKNOWN;
>>
>> - imx7_get_boot_source(&src, &instance);
>> + get_boot_source(&src, &instance);
>>
>> bootsource_set(src);
>> bootsource_set_instance(instance);
>> }
>> +
>> +#define IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(soc) \
>> + void soc##_boot_save_loc(void) \
>> + { \
>> + imx_boot_save_loc(soc##_get_boot_source); \
>> + }
>> +
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx25)
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx27)
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx35)
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx51)
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx53)
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx6)
>> +IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC(imx7)
>
> I do not really like this patch. Yes, it saves a few lines of code, but
> with the cost of making it less readable.
>
Can you elaborate on what part is less readable? IMHO, replacing 68
line of mostly copy pasted code with 17 of a generic function is a bit
more than "saving a few lines of code", so I think it's worth trying
to find a solution that would be acceptable from both perspectives:
conciseness and readability.
Would replacing function pointer with a switch (imx_cpu_type) and
expanding IMX_BOOT_SAVE_LOC() make this patch readable enough to be
accepted?
Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
