From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4FBDDD02 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:10:05 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20070314155900.GA10075@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> 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 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] bootwrapper: compatibility layer for old U-Boots (a.k.a. cuImage, cuboot) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:08:57 -0500 To: Scott Wood 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 Mar 14, 2007, at 10:59 AM, 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). I think David's idea about having a .c file that does stuff and knows about what the bd_t should look like for that board makes sense. For example, the majority of 83xx boards don't need cuImage support (at least I don't think they do) since they only ever existed in arch/ powerpc. - k