From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Schwarz Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:48:03 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V4 2/5] omap-common: add nand spl support In-Reply-To: <20110728135635.6a4378e9@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> References: <1311675739-10966-1-git-send-email-simonschwarzcor@gmail.com> <1311682158-15150-1-git-send-email-simonschwarzcor@gmail.com> <1311682158-15150-3-git-send-email-simonschwarzcor@gmail.com> <20110726130631.739fab1b@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4E2FCF6E.10701@gmail.com> <20110727163839.736d5bed@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> <4E3114E5.9040900@gmail.com> <20110728135635.6a4378e9@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Message-ID: <4E3273C3.9080307@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Scott, On 07/28/2011 08:56 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:51:01 +0200 > Simon Schwarz wrote: > >> On 07/27/2011 11:38 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> Note that there will not be one implementation of nand_copy_image suitable >>> for all hardware, just as currently nand_spl/nand_boot.c is not used for >>> all NAND SPL targets. >> >> Hm. I know that. I just adapated the old nand_boot.c. > > While we're moving things around, could we call it > something like "nand_spl_simple.c"? > Sure, if there are no arguments against -> will do. >> AFAIK the other implementations use prefixes for the function names - >> therefore we can just add them to the nand-spl-library and gcc will do >> the rest. > > The other implementations do not have prefixes -- they all are entered via > nand_boot(). More importantly, not all implementations are buildable for > all targets. They depend on certain #defines that may not be there. This > includes the "simple" implementation. Hm - so adding #ifdefs is inevitable then? Will do if there are no objections. > -Scott > Regards & thx for review! Simon