On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, > > On 02/06/2012 06:51 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Graeme Russ, >> >> In message >> <CALButC+==qgs5eaahtqqu4zejqvg-3187ewaqu-fv3dwp5q...@mail.gmail.com> you >> wrote: >>> >>> I think the immediate focus should be on centralising the init sequence >>> processing into /common/init.c and then bringing the new'initcall' >>> architecture online >> >> Agreed. >> >>> Once these have been done, any board can just specific: >>> >>> SKIP_INIT(RELOC) >> >> I will probably object to his, too - for the same reasons. > > Considering this is a 'free' artefact of how the init sequence functions, > and that it is board specific and totally non-invasive for anyone else > (i.e. no ugly ifdef's anywhere else in the code) I'm surprised you would > object...
To pick up Wolfgang's argument, but why do we want to skip relocation? You can debug through it, it's documented (official wiki has GDB, over in TI-land, the wiki page for CCS has the bits for doing it in that Eclipse-based env, other debuggers I'm sure have a similar "now add symbols at this offset from link" option) and the end result makes it very easy for end-users to break their world (default kernel load addrs being where U-Boot would be). I can see this, along with not at all allowed tricks like loading and running U-Boot from U-Boot being in the realm of not supported tricks the sufficiently clever can do. -- Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
