[U-Boot] [PATCH resend 2/2] arm/boards: Define a new config option CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P

[Vipin Kumar]

On 12/6/2012 4:56 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On 12/06/2012 10:56 AM, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P
>>>> +	/* Boot params passed to Linux */
>>>> +	gd->bd->bi_boot_params = CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P;
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> Again an ugly #ifdef. Why not something like this instead:
>>>
>>> Define a default earlier in the code (is 0x100 the best default?):
>>>
>>> #ifndef CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P
>>> #define CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P	0x100
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> then here just:
>>>
>>> 	/* Boot params passed to Linux */
>>> 	gd->bd->bi_boot_params = CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P;
>>>
>>
>> This would mean that I am forcing the boot params at 0x100 for all
>> boards. Is that the right thing to do
>>
>> Off-course, all of them might already be initializing
>> gd->bd->bi_boot_params on their own
>
> Yes. Before or after this initialization? Will the board_init code
> overwrite this one here?
>

board_init would overwrite it as it is called after relocation from 
board_init_r while this routine is called even before relocation

> But I also think this could be confusing. The generic way to implement
> this would be to remove *all* local board specific assignments of
> gd->bd->bi_boot_params and define CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS_P in their board
> config header. But this will be quite intrusive and could be error-prone.
>

Yes, that is what I also thought..
Originally, I based my patch on the CONFIG_MACH_TYPE handling. If it is 
defined the board need not initialize gd->bd->bi_arch_number

Can you please suggest what is the best way here. Wolfgang, Albert ?

>>> without the #ifdef.
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>    	addr_sp -= sizeof (gd_t);
>>>>    	id = (gd_t *) addr_sp;
>>>>    	debug("Reserving %zu Bytes for Global Data at: %08lx\n",
>>>> @@ -468,6 +473,13 @@ void board_init_f(ulong bootflag)
>>>>    static char *failed = "*** failed ***\n";
>>>>    #endif
>>>>
>>>> +static int __def_board_init(bd_t *bis)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	return -1;
>>>
>>> Is -1 a good value to return as default board_init()?
>>>
>>
>> The return value is not checked as of today
>
> Then I suggest to use 0.
>

OK. Accepted

> Thanks,
> Stefan
>
> .
>