From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Andreas_Bie=DFmann?= <andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:29:35 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/7] avr32: remove non-generic boards
In-Reply-To: <20150511111949.GA3773@samfundet.no>
References: <1431342449-26635-1-git-send-email-andreas.devel@googlemail.com>
 <20150511111949.GA3773@samfundet.no>
Message-ID: <5550929F.8000800@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 Hans-Christian,

On 05/11/2015 01:19 PM, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote:
> Around Mon 11 May 2015 13:07:22 +0200 or thereabout, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
>> This series deletes avr32-boards that are still using the ancient
>> arch/avr32/lib/board.c code. If one would like his board to stay in u-boot
>> there is a last chance to convert it to generic board _now_. It should be as easy
>> as defining these three values in the board config:
>>
>> |/* generic board */
>> |#define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD
>> |#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_F
>> |#define CONFIG_BOARD_EARLY_INIT_R
> 
> I would prefer this solution over removing all the board support for AVR32
> targets in U-Boot.

Me too ...

> Sadly, I do not have the time to work with AVR32 in U-Boot.

... but I'd prefer to run-time test this change on a real hardware.
Unfortunately I do not own any of the removed ones.

<snip>

>> Andreas Bie?mann (7):
>>   avr32: delete non generic board atngw100
>>   avr32: delete non generic board favr-32-ezkit
>>   avr32: delete non generic board hammerhead
>>   avr32: delete non generic board mimc200
>>   avr32: delete non generic board's atstk100{3,4,6}
>>   avr32: take maintainership for atstk1002
>>   avr32: delete ancient board.c
> 
> If one were to prioritize, then keeping the atngw100 board would be great.

+1, but as said above, I want a run-time test and can't do it for my own.
Waldemar talked to me lately to get his ngw100 up running current u-boot
(2015.01 I think). So Waldemar, could you please do a runtime test for
atngw100 and required adoptions? Or anyone else?

Andreas