Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> wrote on 2011/01/17 23:11:59: > > Dear Joakim Tjernlund, > > In message > <of6a573b77.9119deb0-onc1257814.0069a574-c1257814.00753...@transmode.se> you > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Doesn't this add a requirement for future generic pre-relocation code to > > > comply with, to avoid breaking your board? > > > > Yes, but I don't mind if my board breaks from time to time. After all it > > isn't > > in u-boot so I have had to deal with quite a few breakages already. > > It is my hope this new feature will spread to other boards as time > > pass. > > You mean you ask to add code that is not only highly fragile but even > known to be broken for other boards than yours, and the only board > that uses the feature and has been tested with it "isn't in u-boot" ?
No other board is broken. This new function is neutral to other boards. I am merely saying as my board is the first user of this new feature I expect minor breakage of my board from time to time when someone adds a new function that needs LINK_OFF to work on my board but forgets to actually add the LINK_OFF call. Once more boards uses my new feature this problem goes away. Wolfgang, once you indicated you were interested in such feature as I have added but my first impl. had LINK_OFF calls all over the place, still you were tempted to add the feature. Now that I have reduced the LINK_OFF calls to a minimum you suddenly want to reject it even though >95% of the LINK_OFF calls are gone. Why this change of heart? Jocke _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
