From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: charvey at matrox.com <charvey@matrox.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:08:36 -0400
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] arm: add CONFIG_MACH_TYPE option and
 documentation
In-Reply-To: <20110704221612.8CAC51579E0E@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1309770021-9908-1-git-send-email-grinberg@compulab.co.il>
	<20110704210619.GA3218@harvey-pc.matrox.com>
	<20110704221612.8CAC51579E0E@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <20110705140836.GA1927@harvey-pc.matrox.com>
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 Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:16:12AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Christopher Harvey,
> 
> In message <20110704210619.GA3218@harvey-pc.matrox.com> you wrote:
> >
> > I'm curious, is it a feature that bd->bi_arch_number can be set at
> > runtime? Do any boards actually make a decision about what value to
> 
> Yes, this is a feature. It comes in handy in a number of cases.
> 
> > set this to? If not, then maybe it should be a required value.  I've
> 
> Why?

Because if every machine sets an essentially static value at runtime
then it would be a nice compile-time check to do. But, there is no
point since the bi_arch_number isn't fixed for each u-boot
configuration.

> 
> > submitted some patches that deal with the same sort of issue, so I'm
> > interested in seeing that happens to this one.
> 
> Sorry, I can't follow...

I was refering to this patch:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/103149/
which is similar. 

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
> 
> -- 
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
> The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a  num-
> ber or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.

-Chris