On 03/12/2013 12:02:56 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:55:22AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 10:30:40 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:35:04PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> Why would eliminating all individual callbacks cause start/end
to go
> >> away? If that's the way the list mechanism works, the mechanism
> >> needs fixing.
> >
> >Yes, that's how the mechanism works. Rather than having to
> >declare that
> >you expect to have a linker list of name $foo, we dynamically
> >determine
> >what linker lists we have and setup the linker section entry.
>
> So it would break just as hard if we happened to turn off all of the
> things that register callbacks.
>
> >I'm not sure it's broken exactly, I think maybe we just need to
> >say no env
> >callback support in SPL since it's not really user editable.
>
> That's fine, but it's still a bad mechanism.
Yes, the mechanism has a breaking condition on trying to reference an
empty list (which is what SPL ends up with, in this case). Poking
Albert and Marek in case they have any ideas, but this seems like a
feature not a bug.
How is it a feature? One of the main benefit of linker lists is for
things to just work when things are configured in/out without needing
ifdefs and such. Why should "everything configured out" be a special
case requiring an ifdef?
If we want to save some code by ifdeffing the listwalking code for SPL,
that's a separate matter.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
