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