stdio: Clean up
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 6 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 6 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/6] stdio: Clean up
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Quoted 23 lines
Dear Marek Vasut,
Quoted 12 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Clean up a few things in STDIO. Mostly, don't export structures directly, but introduce some kind of accessors if needed and remove dead code.
NOTE: I'm still working on the "compile tested on 2 different architectures"
part. I'll keep you posted about that. I'd be glad for a review though. I'd hate to pull in logic errors, especially into such critical code.
NOTE2: Cross-posting cover to DM list, so I get feedback from those guys.
Quoted 7 lines
Marek Vasut (6):
stdio: dm: Murder dead code inconsole.c
stdio: dm: Add accessors to stdio_devices[]
stdio: dm: Make stdio_devices[] local
stdio: dm: Addstdio_fd_to_name()call
stdio: dm: Usestdio_fd_to_name()call to localizestdio_names
stdio: dm: Optimizestdio_print_current_devices()
Quoted 5 lines
I can't make heads nor tails from this patch series.
1) It was posted to the U-Boot list, but all patches carry a "dm:" in the subject, which does not appear to make sense to me, as at least some of the changes have no relation to DM work at all.
They very distantly are. I really needed to clean up the STDIO a bit to familiarize myself with the code I'm soon going to break.
But all in all, I think exporting structures for others to access them as they wish isn't the best of ideas. Therefore I encapsulated these into the file and added accessors. The direction these patches take with STDIO and console.c stuff in U-Boot is such that applying proper encapsulation will allow easier conversion to the driver model stuff later. Yet I'm getting there with really small steps as I need to be very careful here.
Quoted 2 lines
2) It appears this might be a RFC series, so why isn't it maked as such in the Subject: ?
It's not RFC, why would it be RFC? I'm still working on the "NOTE" part though.
Quoted 2 lines
3) It appears that some code gets added - what is the impact of these changes on the memory footprint?
So far I tested this on M28:
Before:
text data bss dec hex filename
415705 7688 288708 712101 adda5 ./u-boot
11754 788 12 12554 310a ./spl/u-boot-spl
After:
text data bss dec hex filename
415590 7676 288700 711966 add1e ./u-boot
11794 788 12 12594 3132 ./spl/u-boot-spl
As you can see, the SPL grows a bit, yet U-Boot shrunk. Tested with Debian GCC 4.7.1 .
Quoted 2 lines
4) Besides the dead code removal - what exactly is the purpose of these patches?
Mostly see 1).
Quoted 3 lines
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Best regards,
Marek Vasut