On Monday 05 December 2011 00:47:12 Graeme Russ wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Sunday 04 December 2011 22:47:59 Graeme Russ wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > +/* > >> > + * Base for arches to start adding their own: > >> > + * #define GD_FLG_FOO (GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE << 0) > >> > + * #define GD_FLG_BAR (GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE << 1) > >> > + * #define GD_FLG_COW (GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE << 2) > >> > + */ > >> > +#define GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE 0x00100 > >> > + > >> > +#endif > >> > >> This doesn't leave any room for new standard flags - flags is a u32, > >> so why not define the low 16 bits as standard and the high 16 bit as > >> arch specific - Maybe even split the high 16 bits into low 8 bits for > >> arch specific, high 8 bits for board specific? > > > > when we add a new common flag, we simply update GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE. i > > don't see the need for this complexity. > > So the flags can change depending on the build - What is the > implication for stand-alone apps (we have gone over the impact of > changing gd before without a 100% concrete conclusion)
i did go through the research effort and posted all the details:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/114029
but no one responded
> And you must rember to update GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE if anyone adds a new
> flag - Not immediately obvious (no comments to that effect)
i can add a comment
> I don't see any complexity in:
>
> #define GD_FLG_ARCH_BASE 0x00010000
> #define GD_FLG_BOARD_BASE 0x01000000
>
> Gives us 16 common flags (we have only used 8 so far) 8 arch flags and
> 8 board flags
i'm fine with simply adding defines and leaving the rest up to people. but
adding any additional macro code is overkill imo.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
