From: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 0/3] sunxi: Kconfig consolidation and cleanup
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:22:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1412583737.12695.40.camel@hellion.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141006111642.D7C9.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com>
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 11:16 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 10:32:04 +0100
> Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2014-10-04 at 09:47 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > Probably the board [...] selection could be moved out
> > > without any dependencies, although the board one in particular will be
> > > quite a big patch I think it would be worth it.
> >
> > On the topic of board selection which way round should the SoC vs. board
> > options be arrange? Should we have invisible TARGET_SUN?I options which
> > are selected by each board, or should we have the boards depend on the
> > appropriate TARGET?
> >
> > In the first case a user would need to choose from a pretty long list of
> > boards, in the second case they would need to know which SoC the board
> > has.
> >
> > I'm leaning towards the first.
>
>
> Either would work, but as for Tegra, the second one has been chosen.
Thanks. I think global consistency is a worthwhile goal, so sunxi should
follow the same pattern.
>
>
> Architecture select (CONFIG_ARCH)
> -> Tegra Platform (CONFIG_TEGRA)
> -> Tegra SoC select (CONFIG_TEGRA20 / 30 / 114 / 124)
> -> Board select
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think either would be an impediment to an eventually single
> > common binary which I'm imagining would appear as a "Generic board"
> > option which depends/selects all appropriate SoCs.
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-06 8:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-04 8:47 [U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 0/3] sunxi: Kconfig consolidation and cleanup Ian Campbell
2014-10-04 8:48 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 1/3] sunxi: Kconfig: Consolidate SYS_CONFIG_NAME settings Ian Campbell
2014-10-06 7:48 ` Hans de Goede
2014-10-06 8:23 ` Ian Campbell
2014-10-04 8:48 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 2/3] sunxi: kconfig: Add top-level TARGET_SUNXI Ian Campbell
2014-10-05 2:37 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
2014-10-06 1:39 ` Masahiro Yamada
2014-10-06 8:27 ` Ian Campbell
2014-10-06 10:54 ` Masahiro Yamada
2014-10-22 19:14 ` Ian Campbell
2014-10-24 11:46 ` Masahiro Yamada
2014-10-24 13:22 ` Ian Campbell
2014-10-24 14:04 ` Hans de Goede
2014-10-26 16:55 ` Masahiro YAMADA
2014-10-06 7:55 ` Hans de Goede
2014-10-04 8:48 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 3/3] sunxi: Kconfig: Make SPL_FEL a toplevel Kconfig option Ian Campbell
2014-10-06 7:58 ` Hans de Goede
2014-10-06 8:28 ` Ian Campbell
2014-10-06 8:43 ` Hans de Goede
2014-10-04 9:32 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 0/3] sunxi: Kconfig consolidation and cleanup Ian Campbell
2014-10-06 2:16 ` Masahiro Yamada
2014-10-06 8:22 ` Ian Campbell [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1412583737.12695.40.camel@hellion.org.uk \
--to=ijc@hellion.org.uk \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox