On 15:02 Fri 12 Jun , David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 12 June 2009, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 11:14 Tue 09 Jun , David Brownell wrote:
>
> > I'm not really a fan of this
> > but ok if I see the csn337 board patch
>
> I meant to send that in before, thanks for the reminder.
> The email I just sent has that.
>
> If you don't like it, what would you propose instead?
> Remember that *EVERY* Linux kernel (for example) is
> expecting these boards to work this way. I don't
> think it's realistic, or desirable, to change Linux
> in this way. It's not supposed to matter what boot
> loader gets used.
Actually I've no better idea and as Ben If we have the csb337 mainline
we will accept it
>
>
> > > + /* The CSB337 originally used a version of the MicroMonitor bootloader
> > > + * which saved Ethernet addresses in the "wrong" order. Operating
> > > + * systems (like Linux) know this, and apply a workaround. Replicate
> > > + * that MicroMonitor behavior so we avoid needing to make such OS code
> > > + * care about which bootloader was used.
> > > + */
> > > + if (machine_is_csb337()) {
> >
> > please use ifdef to avoid other people size impact due this
>
> The machine_is_X() macros are automatically #ifdeffed in
> the header; no size impact. Read <asm/mach-types.h> ...
If I use this pacth on the rm9200ek the u-boot.bin size will increase
for nothing
If I was able to detect dynamicly on which board I will run ok
but it's not the case here
so please use
#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_xxx
#else
#endif
Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
