From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 21:40:52 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] powerpc: Cleanup BOOTFLAG_* usage
In-Reply-To: <20100913171353.6fb40978@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net>
References: <1284355310-25449-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com>
	<20100913053440.7BAE815242D@gemini.denx.de>
	<201009130827.21823.sr@denx.de>
	<1284389585.26713.2967.camel@petert>
	<20100913220249.1A1C515242D@gemini.denx.de>
	<20100913171353.6fb40978@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net>
Message-ID: <1284432052.15941.4.camel@ptyser-laptop>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 17:13 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:02:49 +0200
> Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Peter Tyser,
> > 
> > In message <1284389585.26713.2967.camel@petert> you wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds good, I'll resubmit.  Getting rid of the BOOTFLAG_* defines will
> > > make bd->bi_bootflags unused.  What's the policy on modifying the
> > > bd_info structure?  Leave an unused bi_bootflags field to prevent
> > > breakage of OSes?
> > 
> > AFAICT only 2.4 PowerPC Linux kernels make use of bd_info. I think we
> > can just drop that entry.
> 
> 2.6 arch/ppc used it, and cuImage still does.  Ideally people would
> use a device tree if they have a new kernel and a new U-Boot (are
> there still individual boards that don't yet have device tree support in
> U-Boot?), but currently the old scheme still works.  IMHO it should
> either work, or be obvious about not working -- that is, either keep
> bd_info compatible or remove support for passing it to an OS altogether.

I agree with Scott; breaking the bd_info defeats it purpose.  I won't
modify bd_info in my change and leave removing bd_info for a future
discussion.

Thanks,
Peter