From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([94.23.35.102]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UYgdl-0001H8-Uk for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 17:52:58 +0000 Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 19:52:28 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni Message-ID: <20130504195228.4ba1cdca@skate> In-Reply-To: <20130504171530.GK31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> References: <1367599871-28479-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20130504171530.GK31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Basic support for Marvell Armada 370/XP SoC To: Jason Cooper Cc: Lior Amsalem , barebox@lists.infradead.org, Willy Tarreau , Ezequiel Garcia Dear Jason Cooper, On Sat, 4 May 2013 13:15:30 -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > Great work! Very clean series. I only have one thought. Prafulla > (u-boot kirkwood maintainer) is always asking about consolidating the > kwbimage.cfg files. The three you've submitted for the first three > boards are almost (if not entirely) identical. Before a whole bunch of > boards get added, should we make a kwbimage-common.cfg or similar? I'm not sure I want to make the configuration language more complicated than it is already. It's already a pain to parse such a configuration file in C (I would have preferred to write the kwbimage tool in Python, but since all existing Barebox tools are in C, I wasn't sure a Python tool would have been accepted). Adding the support for includes means that you have to recursively handle includes, etc. I'm not sure I want to go down this road for files that typically have between 10 to 30 lines. > I'm not sold on the idea, I'm just mentioning it since it's been an > issue in the past. If we want to do that, now would be the time. I don't agree: we can refactor those files at any point in time. For now, I don't think it's very useful, but in the future, if it turns out to be useful and someone feels that it is important to improve this, we can always refactor the .cfg files. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox