[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3] tegra2: Add support for Compal Paz00 (Toshiba AC100)

Stephen Warren
2012-01-09T20:10:12Z

On 01/09/2012 01:04 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote:
>> On 01/09/2012 12:55 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>> The Toshiba AC100 (Compal code-name Paz00, aka Dynabook AZ) is a netbook
>>>> derived from the NVIDIA Tegra Harmony reference board. It ships with
>>>> Android, but is often repurposed to run Linux. This patch adds just enough
>>>> support to get a U-Boot serial console, and the ability access built-in
>>>> eMMC and the external SD slot.
>> ...
>>>> diff --git a/board/compal/paz00/Makefile b/board/compal/paz00/Makefile
>> ...
>>>> +COBJS := $(BOARD).o
>>>> +COBJS += ../../nvidia/common/board.o
>>>
>>> I think you can drop this as the top-level Makefile should bring in
>>> the library from that directory.
>>
>> I did try that initially, and it doesn't work. I didn't investigate very
>> far at all, but I assume it's because the common library is for vendor
>> NVIDIA, but this board is for vendor compal, and so the common library
>> doesn't get pulled in? Does that make sense, or should I investigate
>> further?
>
> Sorry, of course you are using a different vendor.
>
> It seems a bit dodgy to include a board file from a different vendor.
> Sad as it is, perhaps the right thing to do is to copy the code from
> that file?

I think that's what Thierry did with the Avionics Design boards. But to
me it seemed the lack of cleanliness of pulling in an existing file from
outside the vendor tree was less than that of cut/pasting the code.

With my patch, any issues should still show up with "MAKEALL -s tegra2"
at build-/change-time, whereas if I cut/paste the code, the Compal
vendor might not pick up any bug fixes etc. to the shared code until
after someone had actually tested on the PAZ00 board, which will
probably happen a lot less frequently.

Given that, do you think this change is reasonable?

> We should perhaps look at moving some of it into arch, as we have done
> previously.

Yes, that's probably the best long-term solution. I don't actually
recall exactly which parts of that common code the PAZ00 code relies on
right now; it might be an easy change.

--
nvpublic