From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:14:27 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] SPL: Add CONFIG_SPL_BOOTCOUNT_SUPPORT In-Reply-To: <52491C44.80906@denx.de> References: <1380309969-5618-1-git-send-email-trini@ti.com> <1380309969-5618-2-git-send-email-trini@ti.com> <52491C44.80906@denx.de> Message-ID: <20131002131427.GF15917@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 08:37:56AM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 27.09.2013 21:26, Tom Rini wrote: > > Add a new symbol, CONFIG_SPL_BOOTCOUNT_SUPPORT, to make use of the > > existing BOOTCOUNT_SUPPORT within SPL. It is strongly discouraged to > > use bootcount in both SPL and full U-Boot, as they use the same counter. > > I just noticed that I missed sending the SPL bootcount implementation I > did a few weeks ago to the list. I'll send it shortly. The main > differences I see right now are: > > - My implementation requires CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_LIMIT and > CONFIG_SPL_BOOTCOUNT_SUPPORT to be configured OK, I see where you went with this, and I like this idea better. I shall incorporate that in v2. > - The check is not added to the board-specific code, but the > medium code (here spl_nor.c). This might be consolidated even > more by moving it to a non-boot-medium specific location (spl.c)? This I think takes things the wrong way. When it's part of spl_start_uboot we cover all boot method cases (MMC and NAND, in my case). Perhaps we should switch to a useful, but still weak default function? -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: