From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric =?UTF-8?B?QsOpbmFyZA==?= Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 21:52:16 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 1/2] RiOTboard: add new board In-Reply-To: <53384461.40904@denx.de> References: <20140328100130.1605B38233A@gemini.denx.de> <1396128580-11129-1-git-send-email-eric@eukrea.com> <53384461.40904@denx.de> Message-ID: <20140330215216.3ebc805c@e6520eb> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Stefano, Le Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:20:49 +0200, Stefano Babic a ?crit : > I jump directly to V4 ;-) Sorry for late review, I was not in office > last days. > > Added Ben in CC. He sent a first version for the Marsboard. > > On 29/03/2014 22:29, Eric B?nard wrote: > > this board is produced by Embest/Element 14 and is based on i.MX6 Solo > > The following features are tested : > > - UART2 (console) > > - eMMC > > - SDCard > > - uSDCard > > - Ethernet > > - USB Host (through 4 ports hub) > > - HDMI output > > - I2C 1/2/3 > > - LVDS TFT with LCD8000-97C from Embest/Element 14 > > > > Boot on eMMC and through USB loader are tested. > > > > For more informations on this board : http://www.riotboard.org/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric B?nard > > --- > > A general remark. I agree by reading the whole thread about checking at > runtime which is the running board (you do it getting the cpu type). > > However, you use also a compiler switch mechanism, adding RIOTBOARD or > MARSBOARD in the boards.cfg. You have implemented two ways to for the > same thing. This makes in principle your runtime detection useless, > because you can use #if CONFIG_MARSBOARD instead of "if board_type == > BOARD_IS_MARSBOARD)". True, as said in the log, anyway at the moment the same code can't run on both boards because of the different CPU (Solo vs Dual - and not Dual Lite). > Is it possible to use only the runtime detection ? > I think the main problem is CONFIG_ENV_IS_*, that is different for the > two boards. What do you think about it ? > I'll see how we can handle the 2 CONFIG_ENV_IS with runtime detection. > IMHO you could also squash the two patches together. You add new files, > and patch 2/2 changes some of them. I think in this case having a single > patch makes review easier. > OK no problem. > > + /* from linux/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c : > > Codestyle in U-Boot for multiline comments is: > > /* > * ... > */ > OK will fix. FWIW checkpatch doesn't provide any warning concerning this problem. > > +int board_video_skip(void) > > +{ > > ..././// > We have already discussed in the past about this function. Each board > (at least, imx6 board) want to have such of them, and code is > duplicated. What about to factorize it ? I am not against to move it > into imx-common, if we generally agree, but I would like to avoid to > duplicate this function for each board. > OK, if I understand correctly you want me to factorize it ? ;-) I'll see what I can do there. Thanks, Eric