From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_Bie=DFmann?= <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:48:58 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] Consolidate bootcount code into
	drivers/bootcount
In-Reply-To: <50290318.7080305@denx.de>
References: <1338878275-1918-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de>
	<5028FD1A.5010608@gmail.com> <50290318.7080305@denx.de>
Message-ID: <502905CA.8050708@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Stefan,

On 13.08.2012 15:37, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
> 
> On 08/13/2012 03:11 PM, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
>>> +LIB 	:= $(obj)libbootcount.o
>>> +
>>> +COBJS-y				+= bootcount.o
>>> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9XE)	+= bootcount_at91.o
>>
>> I tend to NAK this. Before it was available to all at91 processors (keep
>> in mind nearly all at91 have this gpbr register). Now it is only
>> available to AT91SAM9XE processor series which is the only user for
>> bootcount in mainline.
> 
> Then we should choose a different CONFIG_ option here. One that selects
> all AT91 boards potentially supporting this feature. You are the expert
> here, please make a suggestion.

Unfortunately there is no such config option yet. We could add all the
SoC explicitly like this:

---8<---
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9260)    += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9261)    += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9263)    += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G10)    += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G20)    += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9M10G45) += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9RL)     += bootcount_at91.o
|  COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9XE)     += bootcount_at91.o
| +COBJS-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G20)    += bootcount_at91.o
--->8---

Maybe there is some make foo to get this easier?

>> I fear we may break some not mainline boards
>> here.
> 
> Maybe. But we usually don't care about out-of-tree ports.

That is true, we could just wait for patches adding this feature to
other at91 SoC.

>> I would prefer something that includes all different at91 SoC by
>> default (except rm9200).
>>
>> I have no solution yet but send this to prevent a v4. Will send a
>> proposal for at91 later this day.
> 
> Okay. But I would really like to see this patch go in soon. I still have
> a new board support patch waiting here for quite a long time depending
> on this bootcount stuff.

I'm with you, do you have a suggestion how to do the make foo nice?

Best regards

Andreas Bie?mann