From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:05:33 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1] arm: fix some arch_number definition
In-Reply-To: <m2hc3lj6s0.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
References: <1232603494-14583-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
	<1232603494-14583-2-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
	<20090122074030.57565832E425@gemini.denx.de>
	<20090122082908.GC15551@game.jcrosoft.org>
	<20090122104610.2813A832E425@gemini.denx.de>
	<20090122111348.GC22829@game.jcrosoft.org>
	<m2hc3lj6s0.fsf@ohwell.denx.de>
Message-ID: <20090127130533.GA26615@game.jcrosoft.org>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 13:02 Tue 27 Jan     , Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi Jean-Christophe,
> 
> >> > > Note that there are other places where this is used - these must be
> >> > > changed, too - for example:
> >> > > 
> >> > > "board/lpc2292sodimm/lpc2292sodimm.c":
> >> > > 
> >> > >  42         /* arch number MACH_TYPE_ARMADILLO - not official*/
> >> > >  43         gd->bd->bi_arch_number = 83;
> >> > I've not find it in the official list so I've let as 83 (non registered board)
> >> 
> >> You canged the old "MACH_TYPE_ARMADILLO" / 83 setting in one place but
> >> not in others? This will cause inconsistent behaviour.
> >> 
> >> You must not do that.  Either leave ALL of these as they are, or fix
> >> ALL of them in the SAME way.
> > the other board are not a ARMODILLO correct if I wrong
> 
> Why not correct the wrong comment?  I think this is the consistent thing
> to do, as there certainly is no definition for "83" in the kernel and 83
> has nothing to do with ARMADILLO.
This make sense
anyway normaly no new arm board will not have a valid machine id now

Best Regards,
J.