From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:36:27 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] bootwrapper: compatibility layer for old U-Boots (a.k.a. cuImage, cuboot) Message-ID: <20070314233627.GB12573@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070312204204.GQ28545@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <17911.31029.598986.827186@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20070314155900.GA10075@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070314155900.GA10075@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:59:00AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > 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). Presumably? It would be nice to confirm this and see how much it actually resembles any current file from u-boot. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson