[PATCH 00/27] Console code consolidation
andrew.smirnov at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 05:11:17 PDT 2018
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:28 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:11:06PM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > Everyone:
> > While debugging the reason behind print_hex_dump() not producing
> > carriage return properly, when used in PBL, I realised that current
> > codebase contained:
> > - at least 5 places where '\n' was replaced with '\n\r'
> > - at least 3 almost identical implementations of puts()
> > - at least 3 almost identical implementations of printf()
> > so this patcheset is an attempt to consolidate, share and simplify
> > console related code.
> The console support really deserves some cleanup. We have the LL console
> support, PBL console support, regular console support and simple console
> support, all mixed into a single codebase so that it's sometimes really
> hard to understand what is going on.
> Instead of optimizing the different variants for better code sharing I
> wonder if we could not consolidate some of the console types to reduce
> the number of variants in the code. PBL console works by calling
> pbl_set_putc() to specify a putc function. PUTC_LL instead works by
> putting a PUTC_LL function into a SoC specific header function. Instead
> each board could provide its own putc function, say board_putc() or so.
> This would be enough to replace the DEBUG_LL and the PBL console
- That still leaves psci_set_putc(), which currently is handled the
same way pbl_set_putc() does
- Dropping pbl_set_putc(), would require making direct changes to the
code for boards I don't have access to (as opposed to indirect API
changes that I can test with on boards that I do have)
IMHO, what you are proposing is orthogonal to the work in this
patchset. One can unify PUTC_LL and pbl_set_putc() usecases, but it
wouldn't change the fact that PBL code has it's own, yet another,
implementation of puts() and printf().
I guess what I am saying is that I don't see a reason why one has to
be done _instead_ of the other and simplification that you propose
could (and IMHO should) be done on top of this work.
More importantly, I think that that work is really outside of the
scope of this patch. I am happy to bring this patchset over the finish
line and get it into merge-able state, but I already spent as much
time as I could on this, so any further improvement might have to wait
until some other time or some other developer.
> Then I don't like weak functions. It can provide nifty solutions to some
> problems, but I think it also often leads to situations where you don't
> really know if something has been overwritten or with what is has been
> overwritten with.
And with #ifdefs you do? I regularly find myself having to inject
#error statements or look at the final disassembly to make sure I
interpret the preprocessor logic right, but that might be my unique
> I don't consider replacing ifdefs with weak functions
> a general improvment.
OK, do you want me to get rid of all of the uses of __weak in this
patch set or does your comment apply only to "console: Drop
More information about the barebox