From: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] arm: add CONFIG_MACH_TYPE option and documentation
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:12:20 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E1329D4.3080408@compulab.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110705140836.GA1927@harvey-pc.matrox.com>
On 07/05/11 17:08, charvey at matrox.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:16:12AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Dear Christopher Harvey,
>>
>> In message <20110704210619.GA3218@harvey-pc.matrox.com> you wrote:
>>> I'm curious, is it a feature that bd->bi_arch_number can be set at
>>> runtime? Do any boards actually make a decision about what value to
>> Yes, this is a feature. It comes in handy in a number of cases.
>>
>>> set this to? If not, then maybe it should be a required value. I've
>> Why?
> Because if every machine sets an essentially static value at runtime
> then it would be a nice compile-time check to do. But, there is no
> point since the bi_arch_number isn't fixed for each u-boot
> configuration.
Right.
>>> submitted some patches that deal with the same sort of issue, so I'm
>>> interested in seeing that happens to this one.
>> Sorry, I can't follow...
> I was refering to this patch:
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/103149/
> which is similar.
No, you are wrong! It is not similar even a bit! It does completely different thing.
Your patch: warns about machine type not set.
My patch: just adds a configuration _option_ which you can use, but you don't have to.
See... It is not the same!
--
Regards,
Igor.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-05 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-04 9:00 [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] arm: add CONFIG_MACH_TYPE option and documentation Igor Grinberg
2011-07-04 9:00 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] arm: nvidia and smdk6400: use common code for machine type Igor Grinberg
2011-07-04 9:00 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] arm: omap: innovator: " Igor Grinberg
2011-07-04 21:06 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] arm: add CONFIG_MACH_TYPE option and documentation Christopher Harvey
2011-07-04 22:03 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-04 22:03 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-04 22:16 ` Wolfgang Denk
2011-07-05 14:08 ` charvey at matrox.com
2011-07-05 15:12 ` Igor Grinberg [this message]
2011-07-05 7:10 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-06 18:53 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-06 20:05 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-07 16:07 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-07 16:51 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-07 17:46 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-07 21:06 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-13 5:52 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-14 14:10 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-14 14:20 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-14 14:57 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-14 15:45 ` [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/3] arm: add CONFIG_MACH_TYPE setting " Igor Grinberg
2011-07-17 6:56 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-17 9:10 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-17 9:08 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-07-27 10:31 ` Chander Kashyap
2011-07-27 13:04 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-28 6:41 ` Chander Kashyap
2011-07-28 7:59 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-07-28 8:19 ` Chander Kashyap
2011-07-28 8:58 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-08-04 12:05 ` Albert ARIBAUD
2011-08-11 4:16 ` Chander Kashyap
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E1329D4.3080408@compulab.co.il \
--to=grinberg@compulab.co.il \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox