[U-Boot] [PATCH 08/30] powerpc/km82xx: rename mgcoge2ne to mgcoge3ne board support

[Holger Brunck <holger.brunck@keymile.com>]

Hello,

On 04/30/2011 10:05 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Valentin Longchamp,
> 
> In message <c5ba4fd44d7260d169b924ddda97c4a4c7460dd5.1302272395.git.valentin.longchamp@keymile.com> you wrote:
>> From: Holger Brunck <holger.brunck@keymile.com>
>>
>> This patch rename mgcoge2ne board support to mgcoge3ne.
>> The board is similar to mgcoge. The difference is that
>> a NUMONYX flash is used and a larger SDRAM (256MB).
>> Also introduce CONFIG_KM_82XX to collect ppc82xx common
>> settings.
> 
> I understand this is just a rename, but I want to ask anyway: if flash
> type and RAM size are the only differences, then why do we need two
> separate board definitions here?
> 
> Would not even the same U-Boot binary image run on both boards?  These
> flashes are CFI compatible, so the CFI driver would work on both, and
> RAM size autodetection has been available in U-Boot forever.
> 
> In worst case, we coul differentiate boards by an additional #define,
> which means we only need a single line entry in boards.cfg.
> 
> Why do we need to support two board entries?
> 

the SDRAM configuration is different to mgcoge. And the CFI flash on mgcoge has
a dual die in a single chip and therefore e.g.CONFIG_SYS_MAX_FLASH_BANKS is
different to mgcoge3ne.

Additionaly some functional differences are part of the board support, this is
added later on. E.g. mgcoge3ne is part of mgcoge3 which has two processors
deployed and there are some connections between the processors via GPIOs which
are not present on mgcoge. So in my opinion an additional board suport is
reasonable in this case.

Best regards
Holger Brunck