On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 11:07:11AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > data.initrd_address = UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS; > ... > if (-L was given to bootm) > data.initrd_address = address_provided_to_-L; > ... > if (initrd is provided as uInitrd && data.initrd_address == UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS) > data.initrd_address = load_address_from_uInitrd; > ... > if (data.initrd_address == UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS) > data.initrd_address = UIMAGE_INVALID_ADDRESS; > > can be simplified to: > > data.initrd_address = UIMAGE_INVALID_ADDRESS; > ... > if (-L was given to bootm) > data.initrd_address = address_provided_to_-L; > ... > if (initrd is provided as uInitrd && data.initrd_address == UIMAGE_INVALID_ADDRESS) > data.initrd_address = load_address_from_uInitrd; > ... > > The only change introduced by this simplification is for cases where the > user passes -L UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS or -L UIMAGE_INVALID_ADDRESS to > bootm. (-L UIMAGE_SOME_ADDRESS is now used literally instead of ignored > before. -L UIMAGE_INVALID_ADDRESS used to skip getting the > initrd-address from the uInitrd, now the uInitrd address is honored.) And now I remember why I did that in the first place. It was to be able to explicitly ignore a uInitrd load address from an image. Anyway, since we ignore this address in any case with the next patch these patches are ok. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
