From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Denk Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:33:03 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 1/3] ppc: Report back the location we put the device tree if we dont boot In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:21:35 +0200." <48995F0F.8070807@semihalf.com> Message-ID: <20080806083303.9CC1F24885@gemini.denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Bartek, in message <48995F0F.8070807@semihalf.com> you wrote: > > The test you're referring to was introduced by commit > 75fa002c47171b73fb4c1f2c2fe4d6391c136276 "[new uImage] Respect autostart > setting in linux bootm" by Kumar -- he should be better able to explain > the details. Thanks - and sorry for blaming you, I should have checked this myself first. > It looks like that the "autostart" field has been added to the > bootm_headers structure so that the arch-specific code can make > decisions about booting without the need to call getenv("autostart"). > Instead, the "autostart" field is set based on the env. variable once, > and passed to boot-related functions via a parameter (e.g., "images" in > do_bootm_linux()). > > Again, this field has beed introduced by Kumar > (f5614e7926863bf0225ec860d9b319741a9c4004, "[new uImage] Add autostart > flag to bootm_headers structure"), who should be able to comment more. Indeed - but as mentioned before, this all makes no sense to me, because with the intended and documented use of the "autostart" variable the bootm command will not be called at all. Kumar, if I were to back out commit f5614e79 - what exactly would it break in your opinion? 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: wd at denx.de Children are natural mimics who act like their parents despite every effort to teach them good manners.