From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Scholz Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:01:50 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] CONFIG_BOOTBINFUNC for AT91RM9200 In-Reply-To: <20041123165304.A4E1CC1430@atlas.denx.de> References: <20041123165304.A4E1CC1430@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <41A36CFE.9050900@imc-berlin.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <41A35C81.20709@imc-berlin.de> you wrote: > >>Then I think CONFIG_INIT_CRITICAL is the best choice! > > > Definitely not - CONFIG_INIT_CRITICAL is such an ugly name that I > wonder who accepted a patch to introduce such a name ;-) > > There is no documentation what it does or means; there is not even a > definitian what "sys-critical inits" might be - all the > initializations are "system critical". This is bullsh*i. > > We should not use this name, but try to get rid of it. Hmm. So I suggest replacing it with CONFIG_INIT_LOWLEVEL or CONFIG_LOWLEVEL_INIT. But then: these init steps (clocks and memory) are vital for U-Boot to run. So why do we need this define anyway if these steps should be done always... ? -- Steven Scholz