[U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 2/3] sunxi: kconfig: Add top-level TARGET_SUNXI

[Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On 10/24/2014 03:22 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 20:46 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:14:29 +0100
>> Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 19:54 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>> Hi Ian
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:27:19 +0100
>>>> Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 10:39 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ian,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat,  4 Oct 2014 09:48:11 +0100
>>>>>> Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And make TARGET_SUN[457]I a choice variable under this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> configs updated with:
>>>>>>>     sed -i -e 's/^\+S:CONFIG_TARGET_SUN.I=y/+S:CONFIG_TARGET_SUNXI=y\n&/g' configs/*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, is ARCH_SUNXI more familiar?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no idea ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is something which ought to be consistent within u-boot as
>>>>> a whole. Seems we have a mixture of ARCH_FOO (DAVINCI, VERSATILE,
>>>>> EXYNOS) and just FOO (TEGRA, ZYNQ). It does look like TARGET_FOO is all
>>>>> individual boards though, which would make it inappropriate for SUNXI or
>>>>> even SUN[4567]I.
>>>>
>>>> SoC/board select menu clean-up is on the way.
>>>> I have to admit the naming convention is inconsistent now.
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_{DAVINCI, VERSATILE, EXYNOS} were added recently.
>>>> If Xilinx/NVIDIA developers argree, we can rename
>>>> CONFIG_{TEGRA, ZYNQ} -> CONFIG_ARCH_{TEGRA, ZYNQ} at some point.
>>>
>>> So we want CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI as well as CONFIG_ARCH_SUN[45678]I? Or did
>>> you mean for the latter to remain CONFIG_TARGET_SUN[45678]I?
>>
>>
>> I think the latter should remain CONFIG_TARGET_*.
>> Or I think it is also OK to follow arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig of Linux.
> 
> So either: CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI + CONFIG_TARGET_SUN[45678]I
> Or: CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI + CONFIG_MACH_SUN[45679]I?
> 
> I'm not too fussed but I think the second sounds good and leaves
> CONFIG_TARGET_* available for the individual boards if we end up
> wanting/needing that. Sound good to everyone?

Works for me.

Regards,

Hans