From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:15:32 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] bd_info vs. global_data
In-Reply-To: <20061110002911.B12C23535D2@atlas.denx.de>
References: <20061110002911.B12C23535D2@atlas.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4553E0C4.4010207@freescale.com>
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

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Yes, but IIRC also contains information that is noit available in gd,
> and I don't want to extend gd if it can be avoided, a this  is  taken
> from very scarce resources.

Is the bd located immediately after the gd in memory?

>> bd->xxx and other code that uses gd->xxx, with no real consistence.  I think 
> 
> Actually, in most cases it makes some sense if you think longer about
> it. But I agree, it's not nice.

How about a rule that any function can write to bd_info (to initialize its 
contents), but only the do_bootm_xxx functions can read from it, and only to 
prepare it for passing to Linux.  This would eliminate code like this:

#define OF_TBCLK		(bd->bi_busfreq / 4)

and hopefully stuff like this:

	if ((s = getenv ("clocks_in_mhz")) != NULL) {
		/* convert all clock information to MHz */
		kbd->bi_intfreq /= 1000000L;
		kbd->bi_busfreq /= 1000000L;
#if defined(CONFIG_MPC8220)
	kbd->bi_inpfreq /= 1000000L;
	kbd->bi_pcifreq /= 1000000L;
	kbd->bi_pevfreq /= 1000000L;
	kbd->bi_flbfreq /= 1000000L;
	kbd->bi_vcofreq /= 1000000L;
#endif
#if defined(CONFIG_CPM2)
		kbd->bi_cpmfreq /= 1000000L;
		kbd->bi_brgfreq /= 1000000L;
		kbd->bi_sccfreq /= 1000000L;
		kbd->bi_vco     /= 1000000L;
#endif

In this case, I don't understand the clocks_in_mhz environment variable.  Is 
this something that we really want to be run-time configurable?

>> the bd_info structure should be local to cmd_bootm.c, and should be allocated 
>> and initialized only if we're booting a non-OF version of Linux.  This would 
>> eliminate using bd-> for anything other than booting non-OF Linux.
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> Did you try to implement this?

No, it's just something that occurred to me today while trying to resolve the 
OF_TBCLK problem.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale