[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/4] powerpc: Add LINK_OFF calls in early C-code.

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Joakim Tjernlund,

In message <1292838435-14958-4-git-send-email-Joakim.Tjernlund at transmode.se> you wrote:
> Only these 2 call sites depends on fixups for my mpc8321 based
> board.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund at transmode.se>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c |    2 +-
>  arch/powerpc/lib/board.c            |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> index 7a1cae7..88d9dd8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ int prt_83xx_rsr(void)
>  	sep = " ";
>  	for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>  		if (rsr & bits[i].mask) {
> -			printf("%s%s", sep, bits[i].desc);
> +			printf("%s%s", sep, LINK_OFF(bits[i].desc));
>  			sep = ", ";
>  		}


Is my understanding correct that these changes are sufficient only for
your board, and only for your current configuration?  And that your
code would break (resp. require more LINK_OFF fixups) if you would -
for example - decide to enable CONFIG_DISPLAY_AER_FULL in your board
configuration (cf. print_83xx_arb_event() above in the same source
file) ?

I object against such a fragile and insular approach.



Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
It is impractical for  the  standard  to  attempt  to  constrain  the
behavior  of code that does not obey the constraints of the standard.
                                                          - Doug Gwyn