Hi Ricardo & Michal,
it's not easy to find the time to catch up with what you are discussing here. :)
On Tuesday 26 August 2008, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote:
no you needn't - just you bsp - bsp take care about.
We can be thousands of hours discussing the same, your opinion is that we need a bsp and mine is that it is not... My proposal is start a new thread for this.
Yes, please start a different thread for this. I don't really know anymore what the specific question is. Its easier to follow multiple smaller email threads...
Yes I agree with that we should keep one representative board with use generic ppc platform but just one not more. I vote for xilinx ml507. It is enought.
Avnet board is sold better (it is much cheaper) and ml507 is more "official"... Lets keep both. Stefan?
I'm in favor to keeping both too. I still think all boards should have a chance to be included into the official repository. And its also a commercial argument that a board is represented here. So let's include both.
<snip>
We have a generic board and specific boards that can overwrite the generic functions and add more functionality like custom link script, custom xparameters and custom boot, My opinion is that it is style oriented.
Yes. I understand reason why should user have create his own folder with his design. It is important but again this is really user specific things. If he want to see on every startup "Hello you are the best, my hero", he can change what he wants but this is not for mainline u-boot.
What about external watchdogs, memory controller, Critial GPIOs?? Now there are not so many public boards with this, but we must be prepared to support them. And they need to be set up to start the system, they are the reason for having a bootloader.
Full ACK.
<snip>
I agree that your generic patch is better than adding next platform. If you can include changes which I report in previous email and resend, it will be great. Add only ml507 and small xparameters.h with values which are used not more.
The v2 patch is prepared and ready to go, I am waiting for some more comments to include them. If you want I can sent it directly to you, this patch is big and I don't want to disturb the list.
Stefan: you are ppc440 custodian. I would like to see some comments from you.
ACK
Everybody what to some comments from me. :)
OK, I think the main undecided question is: Should this patch introduce a 2nd board target and board directory for the AVNET 440 board. As stated a few times, I am in favor of introducing this additional target and directory. With Ricardo's current approach we have nearly zero code duplication. Yes, the top-level Makefile grows again, but I don't see this as a real problem.
So Ricardo, you have my ACK for his approach and I will try to find some time to make a more in-depth code review with your next patch version.
Thanks.
Best regards, Stefan
===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: office@denx.de =====================================================================