From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:20:07 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Breakage of board ports on new features. In-Reply-To: <20061204230937.24117353CAE@atlas.denx.de> References: <20061204230937.24117353CAE@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <4574AD27.2080001@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Are you absolutely sure we will *never* want to make a difference > between a MPC8349 and any other type of MPC834x? > > What is the exact problem you're addressing? I think Kumar's point is that the code that's correctly marked with CONFIG_MPC8349 is not 8349-specific. It's 834x-specific, and there already is a macro for 834x. If someone were to add support for an 8343 or 8347, they would need to apply Kumar's patch anyway. *IF* some of this code is really 8349-specific, then the person adding support for the 8343 or 8347 would need to modify this code again. However, I don't think that's going to happen. -- Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale