On Monday 16 February 2009 14:47:52 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <200902161429.10360.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > > at any rate, is there a define that can be keyed off of ? > > > > CONFIG_HAS_FDT or some such junk ? then the behavior can be changed > > > > to like: #ifndef CONFIG_HAS_FDT > > > > /* ABI compat junk */ > > > > uchar bi_padding_was_enetaddr[6]; > > > > #endif > > > > > > Why not just leave the bd_t alone, until such a time as we can get rid > > > of it altogether? > > > > > > Note that just because we support booting with device trees doesn't > > > mean we don't also support booting legacy kernels. > > > > the name has to go. u-boot no longer uses that field and leaving it in > > will simply lead to code misusing it creeping it back into the tree. > > whether you choose to force the warts on everyone is up to you ... i'm > > not a ppc consumer so i could care less. > > You are not permitted to change this interface. It must remain > stable. There are systems out there running really old kernel > versions, and every now and then they may even need to update U-Boot > to adapt it for recent hardware changes, while they cannot change the > kernel. It is mandatory that even old 2.4 kernel versions must be > bootable with recent versions of U-Boot. > > As mentioned before, bd_info is a binary interfwace between U-Boot and > the Linux kernel, and it must not be changed.
i'm not talking about changing the binary aspect of it. i'm talking about changing the API. two completely different things. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
