On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:10 PM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 09:54:55PM -0400, David Dgien wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 03:45:38PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:43:56PM -0400, David Dgien wrote: > > > > This series fixes various bugs and bit-rot issues with the module > > > > loading code. It also ports a couple of modules features from the Linux > > > > kernel: arch specific section fixups, and module PLTs for ARM modules, > > > > to contain veneers for 'bl' instructions. > > > > > > > > There are two things in this series I'm looking for feedback on: > > > > Linux implements module_frob_arch_sections as a weak symbol for the > > > > default case. I didn't see any other "weak" functions in barebox, so I > > > > wasn't sure if using that was acceptable. > > > > > > For things that are really mutually exclusive like different > > > implementations on different architectures I think weak functions are > > > ok. They are not ok as a quick hack for hooking something into something > > > though. > > > > > > > I'll make the change to a weak function here in a v2, since it will be a > > bit cleaner. > > > > > > Since the Kconfig > > > > HAVE_MOD_ARCH_SPECIFIC already exists as part of the change, I just used > > > > that to define a static inline default implementation, but using a weak > > > > function would make that slightly cleaner. > > > > > > > > And in the patch that added the init macros to module.h, I wasn't sure > > > > if it would be okay to pollute init.h with the #ifndef MODULE > > > > directives, so instead I just #undef'd all of the initcalls before > > > > redefining them in module.h. If it's okay to add the #ifndef MODULE to > > > > init.h, that would be significantly cleaner than the current > > > > implementation. > > > > > > I think it's ok to add #ifndef MODULE to init.h > > > > Same as above. > > > > > > > > Anyway, what do you need modules for? Do you have a good reason or is it > > > just for the fun of it? > > > > I'm working on a project that wants to use barebox as a very lightweight > > OS replacement. > > We're using modules to allow loading user code with > > controlled access to hw interfaces via exported driver symbols. > > So barebOS again, we had that as an April fools joke once :) > > You'll probably miss things like interrupts, paging and multitasking > very soon. > > Sascha Does it make sense to choose y/m depending on how often they are used? - commands and drivers that are used quite often -> built-in - commands and drivers that are sometimes used -> modules -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
