From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:32:03 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] arm mach-types.h In-Reply-To: <201111130058.43026.michael@walle.cc> References: <201111130058.43026.michael@walle.cc> Message-ID: <201111130132.03729.marek.vasut@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > Hi, > > Does u-boot always follow the mach-types.h from upstream linux? Is there > any policy? Yes it does follow it. > > If thats true, it means, that > - every supported board in u-boot has to be supported in mainline linux, > too. because that is the basic requirement for an entry to stay in this > file. No, you can define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE MACH_TYPE_SOMETHING and MACH_TYPE_SOMETHING nnn in your config file. > - a device with device tree bindings, won't have any mach-type entry at > all, which means, that a distribution is not able to backport a device > support from DT form to an old-fashioned setup code (eg. support for a > board on older linux kernels, which doesn't have ARM device tree support). Use new kernel or use the stuff above. > > IMHO u-boot should have its own mach-types.h (maybe autogenerated, like the > linux kernel do), just with entries for boards which are supported by > u-boot. This way, there won't be any problems with new board support > patches. That would be insane due to colisions in the number assignment. See above how to handle such trouble. > > Opinions? I explained it twice, once in LAKML and once here. M