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 1UZLsw-0004st-D9 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 13:55:22 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 15:54:57 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni Message-ID: <20130506155457.4623ab35@skate> In-Reply-To: <20130505063318.GX32299@pengutronix.de> References: <1367599871-28479-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20130504171530.GK31290@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130504195228.4ba1cdca@skate> <20130505063318.GX32299@pengutronix.de> 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: Sascha Hauer Cc: Lior Amsalem , barebox@lists.infradead.org, Jason Cooper , Ezequiel Garcia , Willy Tarreau Dear Sascha Hauer, On Sun, 5 May 2013 08:33:18 +0200, Sascha Hauer 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. > > How about using the C preprocessor for includes if they become > necessary? Yes, that could be one option, and certainly more reasonable than including the include mechanism into the configuration language itself. 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