On 5 December 2016 at 08:43, Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 05/12/16 06:25, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Andre, >> >> On 4 December 2016 at 18:52, Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> wrote: >>> The boot0 hook we have so far is applied _after_ the initial branch >>> to the "reset" entry point. An upcoming change requires even this >>> branch to be changed, so we apply the hook macro at the earliest >>> point, and have the branch in the hook file as well. >>> This is no functional change at this point, just refactoring to simplify >>> upcoming patches. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/cpu/armv8/start.S | 4 ++-- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/boot0.h | 1 + >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Will this not affect other boards which use ARM_SOC_BOOT0_HOOK? > > That's a valid question, but the answer is: no. > This roughly same mechanism is used by two Broadcom ARMv7 boards, but > the usage is different there: they include the boot0.h header file only > after the vectors (and not only after the initial branch-to-reset). > So this is already different and not compatible between armv7 and armv8 > right now, so it's not a regression or change this patch is introducing. > > I agree it's a bit confusing to have the same header and Kconfig name, > but a different behaviour, but I don't see a good solution to unify > this. If you do, I am all ears.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot