From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:43:25 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] zynq: Use arch_cpu_init() instead of
	lowlevel_init()
In-Reply-To: <525FA009.5060203@monstr.eu>
References: <20130923143112.1ee6e307@lilith> <52404E08.6070606@monstr.eu>
	<20130923163726.746fd1bf@lilith> <52416BAE.8090407@monstr.eu>
	<20131002214306.339bc337@lilith> <524D159E.4000600@monstr.eu>
	<20131003104157.7ae3580f@lilith>
	<2baa42ea-0e64-40b9-995e-618ca4e05a33@AM1EHSMHS016.ehs.local>
	<20131003180740.6e676d08@lilith> <20131017083328.3f77a265@lilith>
	<82882729-e77c-45c0-8f09-b8f7355ce8ff@CO1EHSMHS020.ehs.local>
	<20131017102525.7f32bd39@lilith> <525FA009.5060203@monstr.eu>
Message-ID: <20131017144325.4481a159@lilith>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Michal,

> > Thanks for the clarification. This confirms my initial opinion that
> > NEON can be enabled in start.S on a per-board basis, as it would workin
> > all situations -- This is assuming that enabling NEON would have no
> > adverse effect on builds which do not use it, of course.
> 
> Isn't it better just to enabled it when __ARM_NEON__ is exported by gcc?
> It should mean that gcc allows to emit these instructions.

Even better. :)

> Thanks,
> Michal

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.