Am 13.02.2020 um 16:01 schrieb Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:33:53PM +0100, Jens Rehsack wrote:
From: Jens Rehsack sno@NetBSD.org
Introduce SUPPLIER analogous to VENDOR to allow (from customer perspective) a VENDOR using it's SUPPLIER's common/ code.
This is reasonable, when a VENDOR (from customer perspective) builds several machines sharing some features (e.g. some FPGA which has to be initialized during u-boot) but wants to use common NXP or Samsung code for the BSP instead of copying and create merge overhead.
Signed-off-by: Jens Rehsack sno@NetBSD.org
Makefile | 4 +++- arch/Kconfig | 12 ++++++++++++ config.mk | 6 +++++- 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Can you provide a follow-up where this it clearer / easier to do something than today? Thanks!
Given you buy - let's say some NXP SoC - LS20XX, LX21XX. The common NXP code for the Management Complex is needed. I2C code either - this covers board/freescale/common/...
Given you build machines from there with different SoCs under a new label - let's call it SuperLink, so you have * board/freescale/common * board/superlink/common * board/superlink/legacy-tune <-- based on some PowerPC * board/superlink/easy-tune <-- based on LS2088 * board/superlink/heavy-tune <-- based on LX2160
All *-tune machines the customer buys from SuperLink have a similar FPGA (there is a little bit more, but for the vision it's probably better to stay small) and a similar external PMIC/BMC.
But SuperLink still uses code from board/freescale/common (their supplier) and it's not reasonable to copy those.
I rate all this not suitable for a commit message. How do you suggest to proceed?
Best regards -- Jens Rehsack - rehsack@gmail.com