[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] doc: Add documentation for mpc85xx debugger support

[Prabhakar Kushwaha <prabhakar@freescale.com>]

Hi Wolfgang,

On Wednesday 07 March 2012 11:54 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> In message<071A08F2C6A57E4E94D980ECA553F874575244@039-SN1MPN1-005.039d.mgd.msft.net>  you wrote:
>> Regarding CONFIG_E500_V1_V2, Its description is also part of this
>> patch or is it not cleared ?
> First, documentation of CONFIG_ options belongs into the central
> README, so we have it all in a single place.

I will take care in next version.

> Second, "Enables code taking care of above mentioned rule" is not
> really helpful to understand what it's actually doing.

I will add more description

> The name of the cvariable suggests that this defiens a E500 core
> based system, but it does not even contain a slight hint that it has
> something to do with debugging.

Yes i agree. From #define no one can get hint of debugging.  It was 
intended.

This #define is created to overcome restriction of e500 v1 and v2 family 
processor. We can have this #define permanently enabled. That's why i 
did not create any CONFIG_ having DBG name.

Unfortunately this is a restriction for debugging.


> Also, what's the "V1_V2" ? Are there also other systems (say, e500 v3
> cores), and are this not affected? We already have CONFIG_E500 and
> CONFIG_E500MC so CONFIG_E500_V1_V2 appears to belong to this group,
> but if I understand your intentions it does something completely
> unrelated.
V1_V2 is used because it applied to e500v1 and e500v2 not e500mc 
processor. So CONFIG_E500MC cant be used. Also I cant use CONFIG_E500 as 
it refer the entire e500 family which includes e500mc.

Thinking over lot of confusion over #define i should use 
CONFIG_E500_V1_V2_DBG.
Please guide me in having correct #define.

Regards,
Prabhakar