From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:24:41 -0700
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC] imx: add multi-architecture README
In-Reply-To: <20131109211656.AC5083811CC@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1384027962-11556-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>
	<527E99CB.7030804@boundarydevices.com>
	<20131109211656.AC5083811CC@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <527EB629.4030101@boundarydevices.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

Thanks Wolfgang,

On 11/09/2013 02:16 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Eric Nelson,
>
> In message <527E99CB.7030804@boundarydevices.com> you wrote:
>>
>> As I mentioned yesterday, I'd like to get some agreement about some
>> of the fundamentals of how we'll do multi-arch, since they have an
>> impact on some patches in flight, notably
>
> We should be really precise when using terms like "architecture".
> Multi-arch would actually mean that one U-Boot image was capable of
> running on - say - both ARM and MIPS processors.
>
> We are not in a shape to even be able to run on all boards of a single
> processor family within the same architecture.  Even if others use
> Big Words for their marketing documents, we should stick to plain
> technical facts and use appropriate names.
>

Points taken.