Dear Aneesh V, In message <4dd11d1f.8020...@ti.com> you wrote: > > > - Get rid of xloader. I cannot see any good reasons why we need it, > > i. e. which functions if performs that cannot be as well (and > > eventually even more efficiently) be performed in the U-Boot SPL > > code. > > Indeed, SPL is seen as a replacement for x-loader.
Excellent. > How do we handle the differences you just mentioned, namely the size, > parameter passing etc. Maybe, we should have special handling for each > and define config flags like CONFIG_SPL_PAYLOAD_UBOOT, > CONFIG_SPL_PAYLOAD_LINUX_KERNEL etc? None of this. Ideally, the code should not even see such a difference. U-Boot does not need any special arguments for booting, so we calways pass Linux-compatible args. And things like image size should be read from the image itself, or form other available meta information (like file size when reading from a FAT file system, etc.). > >> Makefile | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> arch/arm/include/asm/global_data.h | 5 +++++ > >> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > Here the commit message and the implementation do not agree. You > > wrote "Create a top level directory 'spl'" - but I don't see any of > > that here? > > In this patch, I just created the makefile infrastructure that expects > this directory structure. The files are created later in an OMAP > specific patch. Such a definition should include the rename / moving of the other, already existing code. 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 Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
