[U-Boot] Inconsistencies in commands regarding load_addr

["Benoît Thébaudeau" <benoit@wsystem.com>]

Dear Wolfgang,

On 09/10/2015 15:18, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Regarding the "load address" topic, be careful, as there has always
> been a lot of confusion (due to unfortunate historic choice of names).
> There is the "load address" as part of the image formates (uImage, FIT
> image), which means the address where the image (OS code) gets loaded
> (or even uncompressed) _to_.  This is recorded in the image itself,
> and has nothing to do woth the "loadaddr" variable, which states where
> the image is located in system memory.

Indeed, but I was only referring to the load address below.

> A command, that _loads_ an image to memory, should either use the
> current setting of "loadaddr" (if no argument is given), of, if the
> argument is given, set "loadaddr" to that value, so that further
> commands can refer to that address by default.

Makes sense.

Currently, it's all mixed up between CONFIG_SYS_LOAD_ADDR, the loadaddr
environment variable and the load_addr global C variable.

The 1st issue is that loadaddr and load_addr currently diverge if the user
changes loadaddr or if commands change load_addr.

The 2nd issue is that some commands use the value of loadaddr as a default,
whereas others use load_addr. And if that fails, CONFIG_SYS_LOAD_ADDR is
sometimes used as a fallback value.

The 3rd issue is that some read/load commands set load_addr, but not all (e.g.:
mmc read, ext2load), which breaks the whole feature, but fixing this could break
existing configurations relying on the current behavior.

Best regards,
Beno?t