From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 10:43:34 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: tegra: remove custom define for Jetson TK1
In-Reply-To: <20140804193637.D556.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com>
References: <20140801121237.D509.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com>
	<53DBDE26.6070407@wwwdotorg.org>
	<20140804193637.D556.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com>
Message-ID: <53DFB836.809@wwwdotorg.org>
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

On 08/04/2014 04:36 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
>
>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:36:22 -0600
> Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Or you may rename CONFIG_TARGET_JETSON_TK1  to CONFIG_BOARD_JETSON_TK1
>>> or another name.
>>>
>>> I don't want to force CONFIG_TARGET_  name convention.
>>> You can change config names if you like. It is up to you.
>>
>> I assume you don't object to the current patch, but were just pointing out that I could rename the variable if I wanted?
>
> I do not object to this patch at all.
> Yes, I just pointed out it just in case.

Great. For now, I think I'll stick with the patch I sent.

>> All the configs/${board}_defconfig I looked at use CONFIG_TARGET_${board}, so I think it's best if I just convert the code to using that so everything is consistent.
>>
>> ...
>>> When I see Tegra family, each board has its own config header.
>>> CONFIG_BOARD_ as well as CONFIG_TARGET_ will work.
>>
>> AFAIK, only Jetson TK1 used a custom CONFIG_BOARD_xxx variable. I only did that because it shares some code with Venice2 and needed to define some variable do distinguish the two boards, and there wasn't already a standard variable for this in the build process. I'm quite happy to convert to the standard (or even de-facto) standard variable we have now.
>
>
>
> This might be rahter an open question, but I was just wondering which prefix is nice for choosing a board.
>
> - CONFIG_BOARD_*
>
>     This seems clear prefix for board select. But we will have the name space conflict with
>      exsting macros such as
>        CONFIG_BOARD_LATE_INIT, CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_F, etc.
>
> - CONFIG_TARGET_*
>
>     The current implementation is using this.

This option seems fine to me. It's pretty obvious what it means, and as 
you noted avoids the possibility of conflicting with various 
CONFIG_BOARD_* already in use in U-Boot.

>
>
> - CONFIG_MACH_*
>
>     ARM Linux adopts this name rule and I can see various headers are using it.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada
>