From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Schwebel Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:50:46 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] =?iso-8859-15?q?=5BANNOUNCE=5D=A0Kconfig_support?= In-Reply-To: <200904181518.33357.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <20090418162530.GD1413@game.jcrosoft.org> <200904181429.56281.vapier@gentoo.org> <20090418185441.7D6BB83420E8@gemini.denx.de> <200904181518.33357.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <20090419195046.GV5367@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 On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 03:18:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > so, does it make sense to look at the feature set that v2 brings to > the table and get it into u-boot v1? ive never personally looked at > v2, but if it means i need to redo all of my Blackfin core/board code, > that doesnt sound very appealing at all ... We have even Blackfin support in v2, and that for almost all of the time it is actually there. Sure - if you need feature completeness, you'll have to stay with v1. Our aim is a sane design, and I'm still not convinced that this is even possible with v1 any more. rsc -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |