On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 03:19:56PM +0100, 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?
OK, so I'm wondering. Isn't this an example of where our idea that unaligned accesses are a software problem to fix, rather than an area to let the hardware fixup for us, when able, is wrong? In other words, a real life example of why we should go with -munaligned-access being set for v7, set the HW bit and let things go? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
