From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:49:46 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Update and Cut down mach types In-Reply-To: <4DAF14A0.7050909@discworld.dascon.de> References: <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5DC365D89D@dlee01.ent.ti.com> <4DAEA026.1010309@compulab.co.il> <4DAF14A0.7050909@discworld.dascon.de> Message-ID: <4DAF1CBA.9020902@aribaud.net> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 20/04/2011 19:15, Michael Schwingen a ?crit : > Why don't we pull the original master mach-types file, and generate the > required .h file(s) during make using the same (or a similar) script > Linux uses? Hmm, because it would mean maintaining the same script as Linux uses. With the current solution, there's work to be done on mach-types only when someone needs new machine IDs. >> Have you checked that none of the removed boards are in U-Boot tree? >> Because if there are some, then their build will be broken... > It will break ACTUX1-ACTUX4 (which are in-tree, and work fine as soon as > the relocation-breakage-patch is accepted), plus DVLHOST, for which I > have patches submitted to add support. > > For my own boards, I can go to the ARM machine database, touch the > entry, and wait until the define re-emerges in Linux, and await until > that is marged back to u-boot, but this is plain silly. However, for > DVLHOST, I am not the registered maintainer in the machine database, so > I would have to create a duplicate entry for this to work. IIUC the machines that would disappear are those for which the is no actual mainline Linux support and which have not been touched in over a year, right? Do ACTUX* and DVLHOST boards fit in this description? > cu > Michael Amicalement, -- Albert.