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

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote on 2011/01/17 23:11:59:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message <OF6A573B77.9119DEB0-ONC1257814.0069A574-C1257814.007532C7 at transmode.se> you wrote:
> >
> > > > It would break only if link address != load address. That is, if you
> > > > want to use my new CONFIG_SYS_TRUE_PIC feature and be able to load
> > > > u-boot at any address regardless of link address you would
> > > > have to add LINK_OFF calls into print_83xx_arb_event() too if
> > > > you want to use it.
> > >
> > > Doesn't this add a requirement for future generic pre-relocation code to
> > > comply with, to avoid breaking your board?
> >
> > Yes, but I don't mind if my board breaks from time to time. After all it isn't
> > in u-boot so I have had to deal with quite a few breakages already.
> > It is my hope this new feature will spread to other boards as time
> > pass.
>
> You mean you ask to add code that is not only highly fragile but even
> known to be broken for other boards than yours, and the only board
> that uses the feature and has been tested with it "isn't in u-boot" ?

No other board is broken. This new function is neutral to other boards.
I am merely saying as my board is the first user of this new feature I
expect minor breakage of my board from time to time when someone adds
a new function that needs LINK_OFF to work on my board but forgets
to actually add the LINK_OFF call. Once more boards uses my new
feature this problem goes away.

Wolfgang, once you indicated you were interested in such feature as I have
added but my first impl. had LINK_OFF calls all over the place, still you were
tempted to add the feature. Now that I have reduced the LINK_OFF calls to
a minimum you suddenly want to reject it even though >95% of the LINK_OFF calls
are gone. Why this change of heart?

  Jocke