In message <1086964452.15845.1308.camel at hades.cambridge.redhat.com> you
wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 17:16 +0300, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> > Yeah, having the bi_recs interface actually working
> > would be ideal, but at the present time nothing is
> > working and as AFAIK no-one is working on it.
>
> So we should offer some gentle encouragement. Like refusing to accept
> any further modifications to include/asm-ppc/ppcboot.h.
Then you must also refuse to accept any further modifications that
define "struct bd_info" for any boards. Or please explain why you
think that one definiton of bd_info which gets used by many boards is
worse then several private definitions of the same structure used by
one board only in each case?
Let's see:
linuxppc-2.4 linuxppc-2.5
----------------------------------------------------
-> cd arch/ppc/platforms -> cd arch/ppc/platforms
-> grep bd_info * | wc -l -> grep bd_info * | wc -l
6 8
-> grep ppcboot.h * | wc -l -> grep ppcboot.h * | wc -l
9 12
Before phasing out a working solution, even if it's a poor design,
you should provide a new, better solution.
I promise: I will make sure that U-Boot supports the new interface as
soon as there is any definitive agreement about what it's going to
look like. As mentioned before - I'd be happy to accept what has been
discussed more than two years ago, especially Mark's proposal.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
