From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:46 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCHv1] ARM: Add Altera SOCFPGA Cyclone5
In-Reply-To: <20120830171842.GD5980@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <201208230026.53389.marex@denx.de>
	<20120823011353.GB3476@bill-the-cat>
	<20120823104342.GA28214@elf.ucw.cz> <5037D383.2080105@ti.com>
	<20120825120537.GA29569@elf.ucw.cz> <503B98ED.3090407@ti.com>
	<20120829134154.GA13606@elf.ucw.cz>
	<20120829182645.GB3450@bill-the-cat>
	<20120829232153.GA23417@elf.ucw.cz> <503EAD32.90806@ti.com>
	<20120830171842.GD5980@elf.ucw.cz>
Message-ID: <503FA436.7090201@ti.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

On 08/30/2012 10:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:

>>> + * miscellaneous platform dependent initialisations
>>> + */
>>> +int misc_init_r(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	/* Set to "n" for not verifying the uImage */
>>> +	setenv("verify", "n");
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>> Not good to enforce policy like this.  Just don't set it in the config
>> file by default and let users do as they need.
> 
> Hmm. I moved it to CONFIG_EXTRA_ENV_SETTINGS as done by for eample
> u8500_href.h. Is that ok?

It defaults to no, I believe is the thing (so yes, there's a few bad
examples out there including, urk, one that I own).

>> [snip]
>>> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
>>> index eaea1c8..5adbf0e 100644
>>> --- a/common/spl/spl.c
>>> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
>>> @@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ void spl_parse_image_header(const struct image_header *header)
>>>  	u32 header_size = sizeof(struct image_header);
>>>  
>>>  	if (__be32_to_cpu(header->ih_magic) == IH_MAGIC) {
>>> +		/* Valid image. Extract information out of header */
>>>  		spl_image.size = __be32_to_cpu(header->ih_size) + header_size;
>>>  		spl_image.entry_point = __be32_to_cpu(header->ih_load);
>>>  		/* Load including the header */
>>
>> Just an extra comment, drop please.  Or split out if you feel it's
>> really helpful.  No strong opinion here other than not in the same patch
>> as the rest.
> 
> Ok, I'll drop it, and the omap cleanup also. Not worth the merge
> effort.
> 
> spl_ram_load_image... will I need to create some kind of #ifdef? Or
> would #ifdef BOOT_DEVICE_RAM do the trick?

Good point, yes, we should add CONFIG_SPL_RAM_DEVICE and document it in
docs/README.SPL and the toplevel README.

-- 
Tom