[U-Boot-Users] RE: [PATCH] Enable device and console for ARM (II).
r-woodruff2 at ti.com
Fri Jun 20 01:37:29 CEST 2003
Another quick look at the source shows a couple of things.
++ every supported architecture does the malloc of syscalls_tbl.
++ console_setfile() currently requires it.
++ boot_command.c currently requires it.
-- I'll retract the bit about console_init_r needing it, as I see that
an alternative....and I wasn't using the syscall version anyway.
Do you still feel its allocation should be coded around? I quickly
re-submit a patch with the VFD movement removed. If needed I can attempt to
clean up the console_setfile and place in boot_command.c which currently
needs it...but I defiantly am not in a position to test all effected ports.
...you are amazingly responsive for someone seven hours ahead...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Woodruff, Richard
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:04 PM
> To: 'Wolfgang Denk'
> Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [U-Boot-Users] RE: [PATCH] Enable device and console
> for ARM (II).
> The syscalls table allocation _IS_ Necessary to make the
> devices code, especially the console to work. In console.c :
> console_setfile() looks up the proper function pointers by
> using the syscalls table, console_init_r needs it also. You
> know the table is all of 11 longs. Rewriting the code to
> work differently would likely take up more space then using
> the table....And syscalls will show up.
> As far as the VFD goes. I have no problem undoing the move.
> I am nearly positive that its move would have any effect. My
> rational was it should be in the devices init, so putting it
> close was the next best thing to doing it correctly.
> Richard W.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd at denx.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 5:39 PM
> > To: Woodruff, Richard
> > Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enable device and console for ARM (II).
> > In message
> > <FD2AC9A020DDD51194710008C7089B20053D4C81 at dlee17.itg.ti.com>
> > you wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is an updated patch against u-boot.0.3.0 with console_init_f
> > > defined. I added the call into what appears to be the
> proper place,
> > > into the init_sequence, just like the PPC code does.
> > Sorry, but I reject this patch for the same reasons I just
> > rejected the earlier version of this patch.
> > Again: the code is OK, and I want to include it, but you do
> > a few things (VFD, syscalls) which you should leave as is.
> > Please resubmit.
> > Best regards,
> > Wolfgang Denk
> > --
> > Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems,
> Embedded Linux
> > Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email:
> wd at denx.de
> > Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -
> Don Vonada
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
> Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU
> Hosting Partner.
> Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly
> INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
> U-Boot-Users mailing list
> U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the U-Boot