Hi Scott, On 07/28/2011 08:56 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:51:01 +0200 > Simon Schwarz<simonschwarz...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 07/27/2011 11:38 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> Note that there will not be one implementation of nand_copy_image suitable >>> for all hardware, just as currently nand_spl/nand_boot.c is not used for >>> all NAND SPL targets. >> >> Hm. I know that. I just adapated the old nand_boot.c. > > While we're moving things around, could we call it > something like "nand_spl_simple.c"? > Sure, if there are no arguments against -> will do.
>> AFAIK the other implementations use prefixes for the function names - >> therefore we can just add them to the nand-spl-library and gcc will do >> the rest. > > The other implementations do not have prefixes -- they all are entered via > nand_boot(). More importantly, not all implementations are buildable for > all targets. They depend on certain #defines that may not be there. This > includes the "simple" implementation. Hm - so adding #ifdefs is inevitable then? Will do if there are no objections. > -Scott > Regards & thx for review! Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
