[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] arm926ejs: add NXP LPC32x0 cpu series support

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hi Vladimir,

Le 24/10/2011 01:04, Vladimir Zapolskiy a ?crit :
> Hi Albert,
>
> On 22.10.2011 02:31, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> Le 18/10/2011 17:55, Vladimir Zapolskiy a ?crit :
>>> This change adds initial support for NXP LPC32x0 SoC series.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Zapolskiy<vz@mleia.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes from v2 to v3:
>>> * checkpatch.pl reports zero errors and warnings
>>>
>>> Changes from v1 to v2:
>>> * BIT(n) and SBF(s, v) macro are not used anymore
>>> * removed NS16550 and 14-clock UART definitions from uart.h
>>> * added devices.c file, which contains standard UART preinitialization
>>> routine
>>> * added get_serial_clock() function, it returns actual frequency of
>>> UART clock
>>> * __udelay() realization is simplified, no need of interrupt handling
>>
>> As it stands, this is dead code until some board uses it; I imagine you
>> have board waiting for this support. Can you submit the SoC and board
>> code as a patch set? This way, it will be obvious for all that the SoC
>> code in this patch has actual use.
>
> you're right, I have a board to make support for. However I presume that
> U-boot maintainers won't be happy to include a board with
> CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE, and unfortunately flash driver isn't yet ready
> for publishing.

CONFIG_ENV_IS_NOWHERE is the board( maintainer)'s business.

Ditto for the FLASH driver, if it is not required for use of the board 
(e.g., if U-Boot can fire up and does not need the FLASH to boot an OS, 
then a broken FLASH driver is an inconvenience, not a showstopper).

> I'd like to get an advice, if you think that weakly supported but
> working U-boot on the board has chances to be included to arm-next I can
> send the patchset right now for review, otherwise I'll spend some time
> (one week approximately) to finish NAND driver.

IMO, the acceptable state of a board is the board maintainer's affair, 
with a bare minimum that U-Boot must be able to play its role as a 
bootloader.

Anyway, since that is for next, not master, and since you think you can 
add the missing support far before the next merge window, I suggest you 
complete board support and add it to V4.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.