Hi Albert, On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 6:57 AM, Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.b...@aribaud.net> wrote: > Le 10/12/2011 20:16, Simon Glass a écrit : > >> We are introducing a new generic relocation features and we want this to >> be the default. So we need to opt all architectures out first. Some may >> never have relocation, but those that do will eventually move over to >> this generic relocation framework. >> >> This is part of the unified board effort, but since we are only dealing >> with relocation in this series, CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_RELOC is more appropriate >> than CONFIG_SYS_LEGACY_BOARD. > > > I'm afraid I haven't made myself clear on CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_RELOC. I did not > mean it to be an 'old vs new reloc' choice mechanism; I mean it to be the > controlling option for whether relocation happens at all or not. > > I want a relocation skip option, because it is useful for boards which, for > any reason, know that they are already residing at the Right Address(tm). > > As far as an option to switch from old to new relocation... If there is a > consensus from all custodians that all arches should move to generic > relocation, then I think we should avoid allowing the older mechanism to > persist at all.
OK I see. That is a different thing to this patch. So what should I call CONFIG_SYS_SKIP_RELOC? Should it be renamed to CONFIG_SYS_LEGACY_RELOC? With what you are looking for, there was a patch on the list some time ago which disables relocation under CONFIG control. From memory it received a cool reception. IMO there is value in it, but this again is a separate patch. There are three parts to relocate_code(): - copy the code - relocate the code - zero the BSS While the first two can be skipped if the code doesn't need to move, the last must always be done. Regards, Simon > > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
