[U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc/mpc85xx:Disable Debug TLB entry for non-minimal SPL
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Fri Jun 28 18:19:25 CEST 2013
On 06/28/2013 04:05:43 AM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
> On 06/27/2013 12:36 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 06/25/2013 11:09:04 PM, Prabhakar Kushwaha wrote:
>>> then it should be like this. slightly complex.
>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_PPC_E500_DEBUG_TLB) &&
>>> !(defined(CONFIG_NAND_SPL) || \
>>> (defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) && defined(CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL)))
>>>
>>> or
>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_PPC_E500_DEBUG_TLB) && (CONFIG_SYS_RAMBOOT)
>>> || \
>>> (defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) &&
>>> !defined(CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL)))
>>
>> The former:
>>
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-June/157201.html
>>
> The defines mentioned at this link and earlier written by me will not
> work as they are not taking care of SD boot and NOR boot scenario.
How so?
> Below define will take care of all possible combination
> - NOR , SD, SPI boot
> - NAND_SPL
> - SPL with SPL_INIT_MINIMAL
> - SPL without SPL_INIT_MINIMAL
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SYS_PPC_E500_DEBUG_TLB) &&
> !defined(CONFIG_NAND_SPL) && \
> (!defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) || !defined(CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL))
>
> Took lot of time to figure out :)
That's equivalent to what I suggested in the above link. You just
replaced !(x && y) with (!x || !y).
Or relative to your original suggestion above, you replaced !(x || (y
&& z)) with !x && (!y || !z).
They're all logically equivalent[1]. The question is just which one is
most readable/intuitive.
-Scott
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list