From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Holger Brunck Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 11:22:09 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/30] powerpc/km82xx: rename mgcoge2ne to mgcoge3ne board support In-Reply-To: <20110502084247.E7FC41537B0@gemini.denx.de> References: <20110430080512.F1873D5270E@gemini.denx.de> <4DBE6962.1010609@keymile.com> <20110502084247.E7FC41537B0@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4DBE77C1.7020806@keymile.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 05/02/2011 10:42 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Holger Brunck, > > In message <4DBE6962.1010609@keymile.com> you wrote: >> >> 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. > > OK, but these can trivially be handled within one set of board files. > with a lot of #ifdef MGCOGE3NE in one config file or do I misunderstand something? >> 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. > > Well, it's your board and you have to maintain it in the long run, but > I'm not convinced that this is a wise decision. > So your proposal would be to do something like mgcoge powerpc mpc8260 km82xx keymile - mgcoge3ne:MGCOGE3NE,... in boards.cfg and only one config file for both boards? Best regards Holger Brunck