Dear Aneesh V,
In message 4DD11D1F.8020006@ti.com you wrote:
- Get rid of xloader. I cannot see any good reasons why we need it, i. e. which functions if performs that cannot be as well (and eventually even more efficiently) be performed in the U-Boot SPL code.
Indeed, SPL is seen as a replacement for x-loader.
Excellent.
How do we handle the differences you just mentioned, namely the size, parameter passing etc. Maybe, we should have special handling for each and define config flags like CONFIG_SPL_PAYLOAD_UBOOT, CONFIG_SPL_PAYLOAD_LINUX_KERNEL etc?
None of this. Ideally, the code should not even see such a difference. U-Boot does not need any special arguments for booting, so we calways pass Linux-compatible args. And things like image size should be read from the image itself, or form other available meta information (like file size when reading from a FAT file system, etc.).
Makefile | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/include/asm/global_data.h | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Here the commit message and the implementation do not agree. You wrote "Create a top level directory 'spl'" - but I don't see any of that here?
In this patch, I just created the makefile infrastructure that expects this directory structure. The files are created later in an OMAP specific patch.
Such a definition should include the rename / moving of the other, already existing code.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk