Re: [PATCH 26/30] ARM: omap: add board autoselection

Santosh Shilimkar
2011-10-03T09:19:39Z

On Monday 03 October 2011 02:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 03 October 2011 10:58:23 Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> +config MACH_OMAP_AUTO_BOARD
>>> + def_bool y
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP2_TUSB6010
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_H4
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_APOLLON
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_APOLLON
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_2430SDP
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3_BEAGLE
>>> + depends on !MACH_DEVKIT8000
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_LDP
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3530_LV_SOM
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3_TORPEDO
>>> + depends on !MACH_OVERO
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3EVM
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3517EVM
>>> + depends on !MACH_CRANEBOARD
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3_PANDORA
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP3_TOUCHBOOK
>>> + depends on !MACH_NOKIA_N8X0
>>> + depends on !MACH_NOKIA_RM680
>>> + depends on !MACH_NOKIA_RX51
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_ZOOM2
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_ZOOM3
>>> + depends on !MACH_CM_T35
>>> + depends on !MACH_CM_T3517
>>> + depends on !MACH_IGEP0020
>>> + depends on !MACH_IGEP0030
>>> + depends on !MACH_SBC3530
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP_3630SDP
>>> + depends on !MACH_TI8168EVM
>>> + depends on !MACH_OMAP4_PANDA
>> Do we need all above 'depends on *' ?
>> Even if they get selected for one of the below
>> ARCH along with default machine, build should be happy.
>> Right ?
>
> I'm not too happy with having to maintain a list for each subarchitecture,
> when each one has the same problem. In general, I would really like to have
> the flexibility to disable all but any one board, which requires either
> maintaining a list like the above, or expressing the same like
>
Ok.

> config MACH_OMAP_AUTO_BOARD
> def_bool y
> depends on !MACH_OMAP_BOARD_SELECTED
> select MACH_OMAP_GENERIC if ARCH_OMAP2
> select MACH_OMAP_3430SDP if ARCH_OMAP3 && !ARCH_OMAP2
> select MACH_OMAP_4430SDP if ARCH_OMAP4 && !ARCH_OMAP3 && !ARCH_OMAP2
>
> and adding a 'select MACH_OMAP_BOARD_SELECTED' for each one. Slightly more
> to write but perhaps a little less error-prone.
>
> In the long run, I'd hope we can just get rid of these for subarchitectures
> that support device tree probing and make the device tree based machine
> description unconditional.
>
I see your point. Sounds a good idea to me.

Regards
Santosh