[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] Add Boundary Devices Nitrogen6X boards

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/11/2013 10:30 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 15:02, Eric Nelson wrote:
>> Thanks Stefano,
>> 
>> On 03/11/2013 06:44 AM, Stefano Babic wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2013 14:18, Fabio Estevam wrote:
>>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Stefano Babic
>>>> <sbabic@denx.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> As set previously, my position is, since RFC patches were
>>>>> pushed in January, that some kind of complexity can be well
>>>>> managed with SPL instead of with very SOC specific code.
>>>>> However, in the meantime I said explicitely that I was not
>>>>> against the current patchset in the form Eric posted now. I
>>>>> understand this can be seen as a temporary solution, but 
>>>>> let's increase the number of users using these boards, and
>>>>> taking into account that some other pending patches can
>>>>> help to switch to SPL.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In fact, there also other patchsets that I hope will be
>>>>> merged soon and will make the swicth to SPL easier - I mean
>>>>> Benoit's patches regarding NAND on MX5 and dropping old spl
>>>>> code from some boards.
>>>> 
>>>> Just to make sure I understand the plan:
>>>> 
>>>> Do you mean that you are willing to accept current Eric's
>>>> series for adding nitrogen support into 2013.04, and after
>>>> this we should work on converting it to the SPL mechanism for
>>>> 2013.07?
>>> 
>>> IMHO, yes. The long term solution is using SPL, as well as it
>>> is already used in other SOCs. But at the moment, I tend to not
>>> block the current series, taking into account that we have not
>>> yet a i.MX6 board with SPL.
>>> 
>> 
>> Then I'll forward a V3 (without get_ram_size()).
>> 
>> Do you want me to restrict the number of configurations to the 
>> "standard" memory configurations?
> 
> Well, this could avoid that we add now a lot of files with the hope
> that later they will be cleanued up, and then this does not happen
> - and further configurations will be added later after switching to
> SPL.

Lets go this route AND make sure it's well documented enough that
people with their own custom HW can easily adapt the existing examples
to meet their setup (and yes, in the near future, work towards
migration to SPL).

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=aQs3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----