Hi Graham, On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi Graeme, >> >> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Simon, >>> >> [snip] >> >>>> } >>> >>> >>> Hmm, what to do about boot_zimage() in arch/x86/lib/zimage.c. If you >>> define CONFIG_X86_NO_REAL_MODE but don't define CONFIG_ZBOOT_32 you >>> will get a linker failure. Maybe change: >>> >>> #if defined CONFIG_ZBOOT_32 to >>> >>> #if (defined CONFIG_ZBOOT_32 or defined CONFIG_X86_NO_REAL_MODE) >> >> Funny I just had that and took it out. My thought was that it would be >> a strange board that didn't define both. I will add that code back in. > > Not strange - completely broken. Maybe add a #error if > CONFIG_X86_NO_REAL_MODE is defined and CONFIG_ZBOOT_32 is not?
OK, I might need to put that in a new patch. Or do you think it is ok to stick it in here? I just sent a new version. > > It is perfectly legitimate to define CONFIG_ZBOOT_32 while not > defining CONFIG_X86_NO_REAL_MODE OK. Regards, Simon > > Regards, > > Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
