From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:27:28 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] Add Freescale MX53 support In-Reply-To: <201202070000.34270.arnout@mind.be> (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:00:33 +0100") References: <1328273223-16093-1-git-send-email-mbriand@adeneo-embedded.com> <1328277370-18423-1-git-send-email-mbriand@adeneo-embedded.com> <201202070000.34270.arnout@mind.be> Message-ID: <8762fjt2m7.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle writes: Hi, >> create mode 100644 configs/freescale_mx53loco_defconfig Arnout> The processor is called "i.MX53", I believe. We also usually don't Arnout> include the vendor name in the processor identification. So something Arnout> like configs/imx53loco_defconfig is probably more appropriate. OTOH, Arnout> Freescale themselves seem to call i.MX3x processors "imx" and i.MX5x Arnout> processors "mx5"... mx53loco was afaik the internal code name for the board. Officially it's called the i.MX53 Quick Start Board (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=IMX53QSB), but the mx53loco name is also used other places, like E.G. the kernel. I don't really feel strongly about mx53loco vs imx53qsb though. >> diff --git a/board/freescale/mx53loco/linux.config b/board/freescale/mx53loco/linux.config Arnout> Personally I'd prefer to use a kernel defconfig (mx5_defconfig), but Arnout> perhaps this one is more appropriate. I agree if possible, as that's one thing less to maintain. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard