Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:30:56 +0100 Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Masahiro, > > In message <20140324145814.b35f.aa925...@jp.panasonic.com> you wrote: > > > > You are suggesting a better idea below. > > We should not treat SPL as a special case. > > > > In my opinion, CONFIG_SPL_* should be discontinued. > > > > For example, we can merge CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE > > to CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE. > > Are you sure this is always possible? > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > > # define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x00000000 > > #else > > # define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x10000000 > > #endif > > > > rather than > > #define CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE 0x00000000 > > #define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x10000000 > > Are there really no cases where for example the SPL needs to know > CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE, for example when loading U-Boot to RAM? > I think that the "normal" U-Boot does not need to know about the SPL, > but is this also always true the other way round? SPL should refer to "load addr" in the uImage header when loading U-Boot to RAM. So __if the code is written correctly__, CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE should not be refered from another image. But I am not sure. There may be some exception. By the way, the rule of CONFIG_SYS_ is broken here too. We're using CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE instead of CONFIG_SYS_SPL_TEXT_BASE inconsistently. I'm afraid inconsistent rules sometimes make the situation worse than nothing. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
