Dear Wolfgang,
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 04:56 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Aneesh V,
In message4F30D06E.8060200@ti.com you wrote:
I agree. Even on some platforms that are not fully static (such as having variants with different memory sizes) the minimum available memory is more than enough to allocate big enough partitions for each need at U-Boot level. And my guess (or rather speculation) is that platforms that do not have any real dynamic needs are in the majority. I sincerely believe that platforms should be allowed to enable/disable relocation based on their needs.
This is your opinion. It is noted, and appreciated.
But you should not try to continue to ignore all the previous discussion to that topic. There have been no new arguments in this round, so there will be no change of the previously made decisions.
First of all I am not arguing in favor of taking it in the current form. But as Graeme mentioned if the new initcall framework makes it clean and maintainable I am hoping that you will consider it more favorably. And this is indeed a new argument because the biggest objection previously was that the no-relocation case will be difficult to maintain.
As for ignoring comments, I think you are culpable of that more than me in this specific instance:) (of course I know you are busy person, but still..). For instance, my arguments in the previous round [1] never got an answer from you.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/96371
best regards, Aneesh