Hi Simon,
On 04/01/2019 10:00 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Kever,
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 19:03, Kever Yang kever.yang@rock-chips.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 03/31/2019 05:18 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Kever,
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:01, Kever Yang kever.yang@rock-chips.com wrote:
Rockchip use 'arch-rockchip' instead of arch-$(SOC) as common header file path, so that we can get the correct path directly.
Can you give a few more details on the reason for this change? I cannot see the benefit?
- 'rockchip' is not SOC name but vendor name, we'd better use correct name;
- the build system will include $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi automatically
without modify $(SOC).dtsi or $(board).dtsi, if the $(SOC) default to 'rockchip', we can't use this feature.
OK I see.
So far Rockchip has been designed so that a single U-Boot (proper) can support multiple SoCs,
I don't understand, how can a single U-Boot(proper) support multiple Rockchip SoCs, it sounds awesome which is kernel like. But I thought we need different build with different source for different SoCs now.
For $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi, another way is using $(BOARD)-u-boot.dtsi, but I think in most case, we can have one $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi instead of many $(BOARD)-u-boot.dtsi for one SoC, so we need this feature.
Thinks, - Kever
although in practice we don't use that ability. So I don't think it is a big problem to drop it.
Regards, Simon