[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH v2 2/3] base-files: put board_name into separate file

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 17 May 2017 at 21:39, Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2017 at 16:19, Mathias Kresin <dev at kresin.me> wrote:
>> Hey Roman.,
>>
>> independent of the work done by you, I worked on exactly the same
>> topic. But I've pushed it a bit further by switching all targets to
>> the generic boardname function and a few targets to the generic board
>> detection in basefiles/preinit.
>>
>> Furthermore I've converted some targets to get the boardname from the
>> device tree compatible string as suggested by John. Till now I wasn't
>> comfortable to push it somewhere, but with my latest changes it should
>> work in theory. You can find the changes at
>> https://git.lede-project.org/?p=lede/mkresin/staging.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/boarddetection.
>> What is missing: testing!

Some of your changes would be ok to me if:
- board.sh would be used instead of functions.sh (which I would like
to split into several files anyway) for $(board_name)
- related changes would be squashed into one commit, otherwise it's
hard to perceive/track the changes, IMO more commits is not always
better

also this one is a fail:
https://git.lede-project.org/?p=lede/mkresin/staging.git;a=commitdiff;h=af3ef20591e6e9e4ee2cf1b1fc58012df68445ba

and changes like this is overkill:
+. /lib/functions.sh
 . /lib/functions/leds.sh
-. /lib/ar71xx.sh

>>
>> 2017-05-17 13:49 GMT+02:00 Roman Yeryomin <leroi.lists at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> the reasoning is that most scripts which need board_name, don't need
>>> anything else, and those which do need more, they need only a fraction
>>> of functions.sh
>>
>> Due to the fact that I had to touch all scripts using the board name,
>> I feel confident enough to reply here. I don't see any benefit in
>> moving the board_name function into an extra script. Most of the
>> scripts include (and require) functions.sh anyway.
>
> I already explained that.
> functions.sh inclusion in many cases is a mistake
> and in other 90% of cases only one or two functions are needed
> other 10% need 3-5 functions
> so all that is very far from optimal both from maintenance/development
> and resource usage perspective
>
>> I would be happy I've you can review and runtime test the boardname
>> branch from my staging tree.
>>
>> Mathias