On 14 April 2012 18:39, Andreas Färber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 14.04.2012 18:42, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> Register subclasses for each ARM CPU implementation (with the
>> exception of "pxa270", which is an alias for "pxa270-a0").
>
> This is no longer accurate, we do have a subclass for "pxa270" again.
Oops, yes.
>> + /* "pxa270" is a legacy alias for "pxa270-a0" */
>> + { .name = "pxa270", .initfn = pxa270a0_initfn },
>> + { .name = "pxa270-a0", .initfn = pxa270a0_initfn },
>> + { .name = "pxa270-a1", .initfn = pxa270a1_initfn },
>> + { .name = "pxa270-b0", .initfn = pxa270b0_initfn },
>> + { .name = "pxa270-b1", .initfn = pxa270b1_initfn },
>> + { .name = "pxa270-c0", .initfn = pxa270c0_initfn },
>> + { .name = "pxa270-c5", .initfn = pxa270c5_initfn },
>
> Wrt the comment: What's your plan for these? I think an earlier patch of
> mine went back to keeping only "pxa270" and having the other ones be
> aliases for "pxa270" plus some object_property_set_int()s. Are you
> planning to keep their initfns around instead?
I don't really have a plan here -- these are a little ugly but not
horrifically or wide-rangingly so, so I will probably leave them be
in favour of trying to deal with other bits of the codebase, unless
fixing them falls out in the wash of some kind of rev/patchlevel
property at some point.
> Maybe just say "an alias for"? (no need to resend)
Agreed.
-- PMM
