[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] ARM: Update mach-types

From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] ARM: Update mach-types
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:42:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201109121742.38877.marek.vasut@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E6E1C73.9090600@keymile.com>

On Monday, September 12, 2011 04:51:31 PM Valentin Longchamp wrote:
> On 09/12/2011 04:20 PM, Holger Brunck wrote:
> > On 09/12/2011 04:14 PM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> >>>>> No, but then the respective maintainers will get a warning and will
> >>>>> be forced to fix their boards in both linux and uboot.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Maybe the simplest way to catch these boards (if any) is to run
> >>>> MAKEALL on arm targets with your mach-types file. If no board is
> >>>> broken, we have not to worry about.
> >>> 
> >>> sorry, I didn't follow the whole discussion, but this patch will remove
> >>> the mach type for our km_kirkwood board.
> >>> 
> >>> -#define MACH_TYPE_KM_KIRKWOOD          2255
> >>> 
> >>> This board is supported in u-boot but not mainlined in linux. So how
> >>> should we handle this?
> >> 
> >> Well, I think we cannot check for each update of this file which board
> >> are dropped - this requires too much effort. The way we currently use
> >> (Linux is the master of this file, and we update it directly from the
> >> kernel) is IMHO the right way to get it in sync.
> > 
> > Yes I agree. And I think our KM_KIRKWOOD may be a special case, because
> > in the past we were present in mainline mach-types, but during a cleanup
> > we were dropped, because we missed to get the associated board
> > mainlined.
> > 
> >> Maybe the best way, if you want to have your board maintained in u-boot
> >> but not in kernel (however, why ?) is to define your MACH in the board
> >> configuration file.
> 
> Just a short explanation on this strange situation where we have board
> supported in u-boot but not in the mainline kernel. We wanted to have our
> board supported in the mainline kernel, but with the current Linux
> arm-consolidation effort where the goal is to have device tree taking care
> of board support, this is not possible at the moment (patches would be
> rejected or we would have to redo this work later).
> 
> We are waiting for device tree support for kirkwood (which is not currently
> available, I am not even sure this will eventually come, maybe we'll do it
> on our own) to make a mainline effort for km_kirkwood. During this
> timespan KM_KIRKWOOD got cleaned up from mach-types.
> 
Well, Russell went insane I guess ?

> Valentin Longchamp
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot