[U-Boot-Users] Proposed change; What do you think?
jdl at freescale.com
Thu Aug 19 20:57:39 CEST 2004
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 13:35, Dan Malek wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2004, at 6:08 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> > In particular, I'd like to propose a shift from having these
> > fields be present when certain boards are #defined to having
> > these fields be present when CONFIG_ETH1ADDR symbols are defined.
> I prefer we don't have #defines that change the size of a bd_t.
> All board descriptors should be the same size, not all boards
> use all of the fields, but that's OK.
> This way, we have a better chance of using common Linux
> binaries when that is useful. Having different versions of
> a kernel just because the bd_t is a different size doesn't
> seem like a useful configuration. If you want variability
> in the parameters, let's use the bi_rec interface for passing
> such information.
> -- Dan
So, I have no real problem with this approach either.
My concern was in trying to move from board-driven-features
to feature-driven-features. :-)
Constructing a "constant bd_t" is fine by me too, but that
might be construed as a Different Battle. At this stage,
I was opting for not disturbing too much of the balance
and leaving things essentially as-they-were.
BTW, off-list, I've received several "thumbs up" indications
from a few different board maintainers here, and no negative
More information about the U-Boot