Re: Fwd: [PATCH] bootwrapper: adds cuboot for MPC7448HPC2 platform

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 01:28:10AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

quoted

From: Zang Roy-r61911 <redacted>
Date: July 11, 2007 3:54:16 AM CDT
To: Paul Mackerras <redacted>
Cc: Kumar Gala <redacted>, linuxppc-dev list  
[off-list ref]
Subject: [PATCH] bootwrapper: adds cuboot for MPC7448HPC2 platform

From: Roy Zang <redacted>

This patch adds cuboot support for MPC7448HPC2 platform.
The cuImage can be used with legacy u-boot without FDT support.

Signed-off-by: Roy Zang <redacted>

[snip]

quoted

--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-hpc2.c

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2007 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. All rights  

reserved.
+ *
+ * Author: Roy Zang [off-list ref]
+ *
+ * Description:
+ * Old U-boot compatibility for mpc7448hpc2 board
+ * Based on the code of Scott Wood [off-list ref]
+ * for 83xx and 85xx.
+ *
+ * This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of  the GNU General  Public License as  
published by
+ * the Free Software Foundation;  either version 2 of the   
License, or
+ * (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ */
+
+#include "ops.h"
+#include "stdio.h"
+#include "cuboot.h"
+
+#define TARGET_HAS_ENET1
+#include "ppcboot.h"

Including ppcboot.h without first defining TARGET_* defines which give
the type of system seems... fragile at best, broken at worst.  Surely
this can only work by accident.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:59:02PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:

quoted

quoted

+#define TARGET_HAS_ENET1
+#include "ppcboot.h"

Including ppcboot.h without first defining TARGET_* defines which give
the type of system seems... fragile at best, broken at worst.  Surely
this can only work by accident.

What target do you suggest he define?  There happen to be none in
ppcboot.h that are appropriate, because there are no special fields for
this target (other than eth1).

And yes, it's fragile -- the entire bd_t mechanism is fragile.  In the
absence of a time machine, there's not much we can do about it other than
encourage people to upgrade their u-boot.

-Scott