From: Vipin Kumar <vipin.kumar@st.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH resend 2/2] arm/boards: Define a new config option CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:26:37 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C06BD5.7010507@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50C068F4.3000107@denx.de>
On 12/6/2012 3:14 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 12/06/2012 10:29 AM, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>> A lot of ARM boards are using board_init routine just to initialize boot_params
>> variable in the global data structure.
>>
>> This patch lets the board config files to define a CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P option
>> which is assigned to gd->bd->bi_boot_params automatically
>>
>> Consequently, many board_init routines would not be required in the respective
>> board directories and a weak definition becomes necessary before their removal
>> from the code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vipin Kumar<vipin.kumar@st.com>
>> ---
>> README | 6 ++++++
>> arch/arm/lib/board.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/README b/README
>> index 037513a..2077c3b 100644
>> --- a/README
>> +++ b/README
>> @@ -550,6 +550,12 @@ The following options need to be configured:
>> in a single configuration file and the machine type is
>> runtime discoverable, do not have to use this setting.
>>
>> + CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P [relevant for ARM only]
>> +
>> + This config option can provide a way to initialize
>> + bi_boot_params from the u-boot infrastructure itself. The
>> + board still has the option to override it in board_init routine
>> +
>> - vxWorks boot parameters:
>>
>> bootvx constructs a valid bootline using the following
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
>> index 92cad9a..fa161b8 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
>> @@ -399,6 +399,11 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
>> gd->bd->bi_arch_number = CONFIG_MACH_TYPE; /* board id for Linux */
>> #endif
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P
>> + /* Boot params passed to Linux */
>> + gd->bd->bi_boot_params = CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P;
>> +#endif
>
> Again an ugly #ifdef. Why not something like this instead:
>
> Define a default earlier in the code (is 0x100 the best default?):
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P
> #define CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P 0x100
> #endif
>
> then here just:
>
> /* Boot params passed to Linux */
> gd->bd->bi_boot_params = CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P;
>
This would mean that I am forcing the boot params at 0x100 for all
boards. Is that the right thing to do
Off-course, all of them might already be initializing
gd->bd->bi_boot_params on their own
> without the #ifdef.
>
>> +
>> addr_sp -= sizeof (gd_t);
>> id = (gd_t *) addr_sp;
>> debug("Reserving %zu Bytes for Global Data at: %08lx\n",
>> @@ -468,6 +473,13 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
>> static char *failed = "*** failed ***\n";
>> #endif
>>
>> +static int __def_board_init(bd_t *bis)
>> +{
>> + return -1;
>
> Is -1 a good value to return as default board_init()?
>
The return value is not checked as of today
>> +}
>> +
>> +int board_init(void) __attribute__((weak, alias("__def_board_init")));
>> +
>
> Use __weak from inlcude/linux/compiler.h instead:
>
> int __weak board_init(bd_t *bis)
> ...
OK, I would do that in v2
Vipin
>
>
> Thanks,
> Stefan
> .
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-06 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-06 9:29 [U-Boot] [PATCH resend 1/2] u-boot/spl: Add u-boot-spl.img to u-boot targets Vipin Kumar
2012-12-06 9:29 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH resend 2/2] arm/boards: Define a new config option CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P Vipin Kumar
2012-12-06 9:44 ` Stefan Roese
2012-12-06 9:56 ` Vipin Kumar [this message]
2012-12-06 11:26 ` Stefan Roese
2012-12-07 9:40 ` Vipin Kumar
2012-12-07 14:47 ` Wolfgang Denk
2012-12-17 8:15 ` Vipin Kumar
2012-12-06 12:08 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH resend 1/2] u-boot/spl: Add u-boot-spl.img to u-boot targets Stefan Roese
2012-12-07 9:47 ` Vipin Kumar
2012-12-07 10:44 ` Stefan Roese
2012-12-07 11:55 ` Vipin Kumar
2012-12-07 11:59 ` Stefan Roese
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50C06BD5.7010507@st.com \
--to=vipin.kumar@st.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox