From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Schwebel Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 10:21:22 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Motorola i.MX support (1/2) In-Reply-To: <20040618193020.GA5922@veltins.saufen> References: <20040618152118.GA27424@pengutronix.de> <20040618155918.02883C13D3@atlas.denx.de> <20040618193020.GA5922@veltins.saufen> Message-ID: <20040619082122.GK21287@pengutronix.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi, On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:30:20PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > I've just had a look at the i.MX (MC9328 MX1, or however this thing is > called) Port in current CVS. The main differences are: I would prefer imx for the architecture - it's i.MX, not only MC9328 or even MX1. > - different boards supported. Two custom boards <-> MX1ADS. Adding > support for MX1ADS should be no problem, though, since we only have > to rewrite some register definitions. Unfortunately I don't > have the hardware. Having support for the ADS would definitely a Good Thing (TM). > > (1) add your patch > > (2) add your patch and revert Ming-Len Wu's patch > > (3) use Ming-Len Wu's code as base for which you submit fixes/improvements > > > > (1) means that we have the same architecture / board supported twice > > differently. Not good. rejected. > > > > >From your posting it seems clear that your position is (2) [is it?]; > > So I would prefer position (2), too. I would prefer to do (2) with a little bit of (3) ;) It shouldn't be too much work to port Mng-Len Wu's port to the more generic variant. Robert -- Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 Hornemannstra?e 12, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany Phone: +49-5121-28619-0 | Fax: +49-5121-28619-4