[U-Boot] [RFC] New init sequence processing without init_sequence array

[Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>]

Hi Wolfgang,

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Graeme Russ,
>
> In message <1313587343-3693-1-git-send-email-graeme.russ@gmail.com> you wrote:
>> I have been thinking about the problem of the pesky init_sequence arrays
>> and the inevitable #ifdefs and empty stub functions that result so I
>> thought I'de have a crack at a more dynamic implementation. And like all
>> good programmers, I stole the solution ;). This implementation is based
>> on Linux's __initcall(fn) et. al. macros
>>
>> If this works cross-platform, we can finally move board_init_* into
>> /lib/ - Wouldn't that be nice
>>
>> Thoughts?

>   I explained this a number of times before: the current code was
>   designed to allow even for completely board specific init
>   sequences, by simply adding #define for the list of init functions
>   to the board config file - see for example here:
>
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/33951/focus=36436
>
>   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/72131/focus=72136

Hmm, this last thread includes this little gem:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/72131/focus=72136

<quote>
Somewhat offtopic, but you could add a few weak empty dummy functions at
strategic places in the board_X funcs. Any board that needs some extra
init sequence could define the appropriate function which will replace
the weak one.
</quote>

There is an incling that there may be a requirement to have more
flexibility in the init sequence at the board level. Your response here:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/72131/focus=72136

<quote>
The idea is that boards that want such contrrol can redefine the whole
init sequence list - adding what they really need, and omitting what they
don't. Zero overhead.
</quote>

I would agree with Detlev - For a board to redefine the entire init
sequence just to inject a single init function seems like gross overkill.
Of course, this has already been realised and the solution was to #ifdef
the init sequence array itself.

I think we are starting to see that the init array methodology is getting
a little restrictive and in order to break free, some rather unsavoury
coding behaviour has started to creep in

Regards,

Graeme