On Sunday, September 11, 2011 16:13:26 Andrew Murray wrote:
On 11 September 2011 20:22, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:57:47 Andrew Murray wrote:
--- a/common/cmd_bootm.c +++ b/common/cmd_bootm.c
if (load == blob_start || load == image_start) { ..........
} else {
} else if (load != image_start) {sorry, but why does this new if() make any sense ? the only way this else branch could execute is if load != image_start since load == image_start was explicitly handled in the first if check.
Yes that's correct. The move is executed and a print statement displayed - only when the load address differs from the image start address. In other words the patch prevents unnecessary/confusing output and a call to a function that doesn't do anything when load == image_start.
i think you missed my point. your proposed change to the "else" branch makes no difference to the existing code.
current code: if (load == image_start) { ... } else { ... }
your new code: if (load == image_start) { ... } else if (load != image_start) { ... }
your change to the if statement is pointless ? -mike