From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: MPC5200 Patches From: Gary Thomas To: Tom Rini Cc: Wolfgang Denk , Dale Farnsworth , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-Reply-To: <20031112151824.GC31581@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> References: <20031110190207.GA12163@zenos.farnsworth.org> <20031112003502.BBA4CC5F59@atlas.denx.de> <20031112151824.GC31581@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1068652170.9906.439.camel@hermes> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 12 Nov 2003 08:49:30 -0700 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 08:18, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:34:57AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > [snip]* > > > * Does it make sense to add a "Board uses UBoot" config option to > > individual boards? [BTW: the name is "U-Boot".] If we do something > > like this (which I'd appreciate) we should do it right - there > > might be some other boards that use this, too. > > My question is, is it possible to support both U-Boot and $(VENDOR > FIRMWARE) in the same build? If possible I'd like to avoid adding a > question for any type of firmware or a define_bool based on board > selection. I think we allow for this on Sandpoints, so Actually, I don't think it's possible to handle this in a general way. In particular, I'd also like to see a "Uses RedBoot" option, as the booting process there is different from U-Boot, PPCBug, OF, ... Sadly, there is no real common ground and this truly is a target [board] setting. -- Gary Thomas MLB Associates ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/