On Monday 21 April 2008, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200804211444.43917.vapier@gentoo.org you wrote:
Adn then we add "call" and "exec" and "do" and so oon just for other needed options? I say no.
then implement whatever. in the mean time i'll keep forking the Blackfin code.
OK. I offered you a way out. It's your decision.
I tried understanding what you are trying to do, and even though I feel it's not exactly an important or frequently used feature for most of the users I tried to come up with a compromize that allows you to do what you want to do without hurting others and without polluting the command name space.
i consider the cache one aspect of it. the users shouldnt have to know "oh i gotta turn off cache", they just have to know "i'm loading up my code and it's going to take over the system". that is why a "-noret" flags makes sense instead of trying to break down specific aspects. also adding a myriad of cache options to one function achieves the same thing as doing: dcache off; icache off; go <address>
Are you aware that U-Boot does use interrupts here and there? That we actually provide functions to register interrupt handlers to standalone programs, etc. ?
yes i'm aware, but we arent talking about standalone applications here, so those really dont matter.
You have a really, really funny way of deciding what matters and what not. All the things you have in mind do matter (even if they are documented to be unsupported), while other existing and legal ways of doing things don't matter. That doesn't make working with you an easy task.
it's really quite simple. the need is to jump to an address to execute a blob and never return to u-boot. what features are available to standalone u-boot applications (while useful) dont really matter. such applications rely on u-boot remaining resident which is the opposite of what i'm talking about. -mike