From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mailander Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:43:11 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: allow use with Freescale 2.6.38 kernels In-Reply-To: <20120303093826.C3054126F3B0@gemini.denx.de> References: <1330728909-12203-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <20120302232545.464F212A7F30@gemini.denx.de> <4F51BBA9.4090608@googlemail.com> <20120303093826.C3054126F3B0@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4F51F5BF.1040601@gmx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 03/03/2012 10:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Dirk, > > In message <4F51BBA9.4090608@googlemail.com> you wrote: >> >> Having Freescale working on these quite old and unclean U-Boot and >> Kernel versions is a pain. Kernel is an other topic, but with U-Boot, >> thanks to the very good work of everybody, we are in a good position >> to get rid of the old Freescale U-Boot, now. And get everybody to work >> with mainline and create patches against it. > > ACK. > >> So if it helps to apply some backward compatibility to make it easier >> for everybody, esp. Freescale, to switch to mainline U-Boot, I think >> we should try it. > > Agreed. If these patches were only for backward compatibility I would > not complain much. But they are known to introduce forward incompati- > bilities with all this MACH_ID stuff, and this is what I would like to > avoid. > > I think we should make a clear statement that new boards that get > added should only support DT based configurations. If really needed, > legacy MACH_ID support may be kept out of tree. I think a point here is that boards must not use any macro defined in mach-types.h, such as machine_is_*. U-Boot does not need it, and their usage makes the code strictly dependent from the kernel legacy mach-ids. If a board defines only CONFIG_MACH_TYPE in its own configuration file, it should not break if we decide in future to drop it completely. Best regards, Stefano Babic