On 03/03/2012 10:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Dirk,
In message 4F51BBA9.4090608@googlemail.com you wrote:
Having Freescale working on these quite old and unclean U-Boot and Kernel versions is a pain. Kernel is an other topic, but with U-Boot, thanks to the very good work of everybody, we are in a good position to get rid of the old Freescale U-Boot, now. And get everybody to work with mainline and create patches against it.
ACK.
So if it helps to apply some backward compatibility to make it easier for everybody, esp. Freescale, to switch to mainline U-Boot, I think we should try it.
Agreed. If these patches were only for backward compatibility I would not complain much. But they are known to introduce forward incompati- bilities with all this MACH_ID stuff, and this is what I would like to avoid.
I think we should make a clear statement that new boards that get added should only support DT based configurations. If really needed, legacy MACH_ID support may be kept out of tree.
I think a point here is that boards must not use any macro defined in mach-types.h, such as machine_is_*. U-Boot does not need it, and their usage makes the code strictly dependent from the kernel legacy mach-ids.
If a board defines only CONFIG_MACH_TYPE in its own configuration file, it should not break if we decide in future to drop it completely.
Best regards, Stefano Babic