From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:31:04 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC In-Reply-To: <20130702214546.70E58380E10@gemini.denx.de> References: <20130702162829.GG16630@bill-the-cat> <20130702214546.70E58380E10@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <20130703123104.GR16630@bill-the-cat> 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, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:45:46PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > In message <20130702162829.GG16630@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > That said, when others have suggested something like this before, > > Wolfgang has pointed out and NAK'd the idea of adding N different > > configuration as that adds (potentially) a lot of build time for > > custodians/etc that tend to build --soc or --arch or other group > > targets. So, what do we want to do here? I guess longer term, if we > > are able to focus on switching to Kconfig, it would become we provide a > > generic defconfig for am335x (or imx6 or ...) with a best-fit-for-all > > set and communities can provide tweaked binaries as needed. But do we > > want to think about any stop-gap solutions here? > > You can always add extra defines on the make command line... OK, I'm not spotting the easy way to do that. Hint? Thanks! -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: