Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote on 2011/01/09 21:29:04: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message <1292838435-14958-4-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> > you wrote: > > Only these 2 call sites depends on fixups for my mpc8321 based > > board. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c | 2 +- > > arch/powerpc/lib/board.c | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c > > b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c > > index 7a1cae7..88d9dd8 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c > > @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ int prt_83xx_rsr(void) > > sep = " "; > > for (i = 0; i < n; i++) > > if (rsr & bits[i].mask) { > > - printf("%s%s", sep, bits[i].desc); > > + printf("%s%s", sep, LINK_OFF(bits[i].desc)); > > sep = ", "; > > } > > > Is my understanding correct that these changes are sufficient only for > your board, and only for your current configuration? And that your > code would break (resp. require more LINK_OFF fixups) if you would - > for example - decide to enable CONFIG_DISPLAY_AER_FULL in your board > configuration (cf. print_83xx_arb_event() above in the same source > file) ?
It would break only if link address != load address. That is, if you want to use my new CONFIG_SYS_TRUE_PIC feature and be able to load u-boot at any address regardless of link address you would have to add LINK_OFF calls into print_83xx_arb_event() too if you want to use it. > > I object against such a fragile and insular approach. Considering you were tempted to add my previous approach which had LINK_OFF calls all over I don't see were this objection comes from. Have you changed your mind? Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot