Hi Nikolay, On 06/16/14 17:33, Nikolay Dimitrov wrote: > Hi Igor, > > My personal opinion is that unless you intend to run the binary on multiple > IMX6 variants,
That is exactly what we do already (code is on the way) and IMO what we should aim for. > there's no > need to do expensive checks in runtime, when you can do the same at > compile-time. Why do you think it is expensive? Any benchmarks? Also, the solution is what Marek already said, in short: do the check once and store the result for future use... > For me it's the > same as choosing puts() vs printf() - you know at compile time whether you > need to print arguments > or not, so same with the USB controller base address - you know in advance > that you target a specific > CPU variant and not the other ones. For me it is just an artificial complication which prevents single binary for i.MX6 based boards. Don't get me wrong, I think that in your board code you can choose which approach you want, whether it will be single or multi binary, but this is i.MX6 (and possibly future i.MX*) USB code which can be used on many i.MX6 boards. > > To a certain extent I agree that it would be awesome to have the same code > running on all IMX6 > variants, but the run-time checks will increase somewhat the binary footprint > and U-Boot community has > already gone to great efforts to remove unnecessary bloat. Again, what are we talking about? A couple of bytes? > My personal assumption is that such generic > approach would be more tolerated in the Linux kernel. For Linux kernel this is the only acceptable way now. -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
