From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Allen Martin Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 12:02:10 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 6/9] tegra: enable SPL build for seaboard In-Reply-To: <4FBBC7D9.5030607@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1336633347-8049-1-git-send-email-amartin@nvidia.com> <1336633347-8049-7-git-send-email-amartin@nvidia.com> <4FB1E460.7010405@wwwdotorg.org> <20120518222440.GC30009@nvidia.com> <4FBBC7D9.5030607@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20120522190210.GG30009@nvidia.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07:37AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 05/18/2012 04:24 PM, Allen Martin wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:06:40PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 05/10/2012 01:02 AM, Allen Martin wrote: > ... > >> Perhaps we can just create a new tegra_spl board for the SPL rather than > >> having an SPL variant for each board. Still, I don't know how we'd > >> represent the UART differences if we did that though. > > > > I tossed out that idea as part of the discussion about using a > > separate toolchain for the SPL, but Wolfgang shot it down: > > > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-April/122248.html > > Is that the right link? That message seems to be talking about a > CROSS_COMPILE_SPL variable rather than having a separate boards.cfg > entry for a Tegra SPL. This was the piece I was referring to, which was a conversation about exactly this topic (armv4 SPL and armv7 u-boot): > > The architecture seems harder to fix. It seems like I really have to > > have two entries in boards.cfg, which means two passes of config/make. > > This should be not needed; I also do not think this would be an > acceptable approach. -Allen -- nvpublic