On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:02:49 +0200 Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Peter Tyser, > > In message <1284389585.26713.2967.ca...@petert> you wrote: > > > > Sounds good, I'll resubmit. Getting rid of the BOOTFLAG_* defines will > > make bd->bi_bootflags unused. What's the policy on modifying the > > bd_info structure? Leave an unused bi_bootflags field to prevent > > breakage of OSes? > > AFAICT only 2.4 PowerPC Linux kernels make use of bd_info. I think we > can just drop that entry. 2.6 arch/ppc used it, and cuImage still does. Ideally people would use a device tree if they have a new kernel and a new U-Boot (are there still individual boards that don't yet have device tree support in U-Boot?), but currently the old scheme still works. IMHO it should either work, or be obvious about not working -- that is, either keep bd_info compatible or remove support for passing it to an OS altogether. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
