[U-Boot-Users] Pull request: u-boot-freebsd

[Ben Warren]

Hi Rafal,

Rafal Jaworowski wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
> you wrote:
>   
>> I'm afraid I have to reject this pull request.
>>
>> First, I think it breaks Linux booting support for a couple of boards
>> (all 4xx ones, that is).
>>
>>     
>>> The following changes since commit 41be969f4957115ed7b1fe8b890bfaee99d7a7a2:
>>>   Wolfgang Denk (1):
>>>         Release v1.3.1
>>>
>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>       
>> ...
>>     
>>>       [POWERPC] Simplify bd_info struct
>>>       
>> This is the culprit.
>>
>> With your  patch,  you  *always*  include  an  entry  "unsigned  long
>> bi_bar;" in the bd_infor structure - even for processors which didn't
>> have  one before (like 4xx boards). Thus you change the layout of the
>> bd_info structure for such systems, which causes  an  incompatibility
>> with the respective structure used by the Linux kernel.
>>
>> Also, I have to admit that  I  dislike  this  type  of  #ifdef  based
>> "simplification".  I  don't  think  the  resulting  code becomes more
>> readable.
>>
>>     
>
> Mhm, right. Maybe it was too much of an improvement :) Given all the legacy
> dependencies between bd_info and Linux it's probably better to just leave it
> as is and deal with those #idef'ed fields locally (where they are accessed).
>
>   
>> Please fix and resubmit.
>>
>>     
>
> Will do.
>
>   
>> Then, we have this part:
>>
>>     
>>>       [Net] Introduce standalone eth_receive() routine
>>>       
>> This adds a lot of code to the networking code which is not neede dby
>> most of the boards. Please make this an optional feature that get's
>> only compiled in for boards that explicitely request it. Then run this
>> patch separately through the network custodian.
>>
>>     
>
> I already sent this patch to Ben and the list some time ago and got an initial
> ACK, but I'll re-spin with.
>
>   
When you send the re-spun patch I'll be sure to pull it in.

regards,
Ben