From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B506CDDDFA for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 02:59:06 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:59:00 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] bootwrapper: compatibility layer for old U-Boots (a.k.a. cuImage, cuboot) Message-ID: <20070314155900.GA10075@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <20070312204204.GQ28545@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <17911.31029.598986.827186@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <17911.31029.598986.827186@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:25:25PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Hmmm... is ppcboot.h a direct copy of a file from somewhere else > (e.g. uboot), or did you construct it? It has an *awful* lot of > ifdefs. If it is a direct copy from uboot, I can see an argument for > keeping it as-is, but if not, I think we can come up with a better way > to structure things. It's copied from asm-ppc/ppcboot.h, which was presumably copied from u-boot/ppcboot at some point. It's certainly ugly, but changing it would break compatibility (thus negating the point of cuImage). -Scott