Dear Albert ARIBAUD, In message <4d286f58.9010...@free.fr> you wrote: > > I know we consider multi-board u-boot binaries when boards are variant > of a given SoC, that's one reason why we wanted relocation. I'm not sure > about multi-SoC when SoC is a variant of a given cpu, though. Wolfgang, > your opinion?
Unless we see a specific example which uses this feature, we should not add provisions that make the code more complicated than needed. And when we start supporting such a feature, we should probably do this based on a device tree approach. > > Although this function is non-empty, flush_dcache_range() is in turn > > empty. Effect will be the same, right? > > Yes the effect is the same, but your patch results in a non-trivially > empty function; I'd prefer it to be visibly empty when we compile > without cache support. Yes, that's my opinion, too. > Just because Linux uses armv7-a for a v7 arch does not mean we must have > it for u-boot. For starters, U-boot does not always boot Linux. :) > > As for out-dated compilers, that's the question I'm asking: do we > consider e.g. ELDK 4.2 as outdated or not? It won't accept armv7-a. That's a catch question. Yes, ELDK 4.2 is outdated. But it is still one of the most stable versions of a tool chain known to me, especially when it comes to using the very same tool versions across several architectures. I cannot see any benefits of this code change that would justiify such a breakage. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de "The bad reputation UNIX has gotten is totally undeserved, laid on by people who don't understand, who have not gotten in there and tried anything." -- Jim Joyce, owner of Jim Joyce's UNIX Bookstore _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
