Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> In article <43FE0B99.2000708@tadpole.com>
> garrett_damore@tadpole.com wrote:
>
>   
>> We have a sanity check already -- the link will fail due to multiple
>> symbol definitions. :-)
>>     
>
> Well, that doesn't indicate what is wrong exactly.
>   
Not exactly, but pretty darn close. :-)
>   
>> I am generally *not* fond of #ifdef jungles, and your proposal creates
>> two of them.
>>
>> The other problem with this is that I can imagine having a board
>> defintion that actually supports a board *family* (where the type of
>> board is run-time detectable via a register), and then what do you do? 
>>     
>
> Maybe MI board_info() can call board specific xxx_board_info()
> funtcions? Some of examples are ofppc/ofppc/platform.c and
> pmax/pmax/sysconf.c etc.
>   
I am okay with that.  But at this point I don't really see much benefit
in it.  The big switch table just adds a thin layer of code.

If you want the big #ifdef table, we can do it, and rename the
board_info routines to xxx_board_info or somesuch.

    -- Garrett

-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191