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

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote on 2011/01/18 00:42:10:
>
> Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
>
> In message <OF71B40F2E.5C935BA8-ONC125781B.007CB9E6-C125781B.007E5726 at transmode.se> you wrote:
> >
> > No other board is broken. This new function is neutral to other boards.
>
> Well, I see this differntly.
>
> > 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?
>
> Yes, I am definitely interested in this feature.

Good.

>
> But I still consider the impact to make this really working to
> heavy (and by working I mean working for all boards, out of the box,
> without having to go through iterations of breakage to find out where
> else a LINK_OFF needs to be added).

Yes, but the target area is fairly small. Only code the runs before
relocation which isn't that much.
How do you think a solution for all boards would look like?
The only other method is can think of is some MMU trickery and
I don't even see how you can make that work on all boards and
you would probably be locked to specific address ranges if
you use BATs as defined on PowerPC

>
> In the current form, your "simplification" results just from the fact
> that you just added the bare minimum needed for your board. If - as
> you hope - more and more boards would use this, more and more of these
> now omitted LINK_OFFs would have to be added again.  The result would
> be exactly the same mess as your original patch - it doesn't small
> any better when you try to feed it to me in small bites.

My first patch was pretty much only my board too and the result for all
boards would be MUCH smaller than the first patch approach.
I did only did one board because that was what I could test and I
wanted feedback from the list. Did you expect me to blindly
port this to every board?
The ground work for 83xx is done, a few more LINK_OFF calls is probably
needed for all 83xx boards, I can take a stab at the remaining
83xx boards once you embrace this method. The rest will have to
be up to the other board maintainers, if they want this feature.

>
> And frankly, adding this stuff for an out-of-tree port is, um...,
> sorry, but I don't find polite words atm.

Yet you are interested in such a feature. Sorry but I too
have a hard time finding polite words.