[U-Boot] [PATCH] kirkwood: added common config file mv-config.h

Prafulla Wadaskar
2010-10-01T06:45:42Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:06 PM
> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> Cc: Rogan Dawes; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare;
> Prabhanjan Sarnaik
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] kirkwood: added common config
> file mv-config.h
>
> Le 01/10/2010 08:10, Prafulla Wadaskar a ?crit :
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.aribaud at free.fr]
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:05 PM
> >> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> >> Cc: Rogan Dawes; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare;
> >> Prabhanjan Sarnaik
> >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] kirkwood: added common config
> >> file mv-config.h
> >>
> >> Le 30/09/2010 16:33, Prafulla Wadaskar a ?crit :
> >>
> >>>>> +/*
> >>>>> + * IDe Support on SATA port0
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>
> >>>> IDe?
> >>>
> >>> I think Ide can be removed, right?
> >
> > I mean here s/Ide//g
> >
> >>
> >> Do none of the boards have disks? At least openrd-base should
> >> have IDE
> >
> > Guruplug, openrd_base and rd6281a have disk support
> >
> >> (and openrd-client as well if the patch to introduced it is
> >> finally merged).
> >>
> >> So IDE should stay IMO, but the IDE stuff should be split into
> >> board-specifics (basically the defines for the IDE0 and, if
> >> it exists,
> >> IDE1 base addresses) and SoC-specifics (basically everything
> >> else, i.e.
> >> all that is required for cmd_ide.c to compile).
> >
> > At this moment I only see the case with edminiv2 board
> where ATA bus0 is configured for sata port1.
> > To extend this support for this board, we can undef and
> redef the respective macros.
> >
> > Whereas on all other boards it is one-to-one mapping.
> >
> > To me setting default configuration make more sense, that
> avoids code duplication in several files.
> >
> > Regards..
> > Prafulla . .
>
> Even if almost all boards have straight rather than cross mappings of
> IDE0/IDE1 to SATA0/SATA1, not all of them have two busses
> (guruplug has
> only one, and likewise another kirkwood based board I'm
> working on) so
> half the boards would have to modify the settings anyway.
>
> Besides, having each board explicitely telling what busses is
> has rather
> than making it half implicit in the SoC common config file has two
> advantages:
>
> - someone looking at the board config file will immediately
> know without
> if it supports IDE *and* how many busses it actually provides
> *and* how
> they are mapped;
>
> - boards will always declare "what is there" rather than declaring
> either "what is there" or possibly "what isn't there even though the
> common config said there would be".
>
> After all, this is only one or two lines in the board config,
> and they

Well one can always undef if using only one sataport, as we undef commands configured in config_cmd_default.h
On the other hand one can say I will define the needed config for used sata port. This makes more sense

I do agree, it is positively informative,
I will keep sata port config out of the common definition.

Regards..
Prafulla . .