On 02/04/2013 04:19 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Nikita,
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:37:06 +0200, Nikita Kiryanov
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Albert,
On 02/04/2013 01:57 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
IIRC, you has submitted a fix so that BMP loads would result in
correctly aligned fields and thus no need for accessors. Why this
change of mind?
>
I did mention that I consider that fix as temporary. I believe this fix
is better because it addresses the issue everywhere and does so in a
more maintainable way (does not require the address fix to be duplicated
everywhere there is a problem).
I actually like the new fix less, as it adds an API where there is no
need of one -- it's not like the implementation of BMP is at risk of
changing. What is the problem in fixing the load address at load time
and then passing this fixed address around?
The problem is that it makes the U-Boot display subsystems broken in
terms of what kind of programming interface they provide.
The load address fix has to be applied in every code path that leads
to a BMP being loaded and read in memory. This means that anyone who
wants to implement some BMP related functionality needs to care about
this architecture/memory issue, and actively circumvent it.
This isn't good design. If I'm manipulating BMPs I should only care
about my BMPs, not hardware issues.
Amicalement,
--
Regards,
Nikita.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
