Le 05/08/2010 20:37, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit :
-----Original Message----- From: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Denk Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:55 PM To: Albert ARIBAUD Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V7 0/4] Add disk support to orion5x and edminiv2
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message4C5AD4F7.2030604@free.fr you wrote:
As for the configs, some u-boot boards do commonalize, see
for instance
include/configs/spear*.h. That makes sense because there is a board family, with a common HW design and common external components.
This is not actually a prerequisite. You can create a common look and feel across completely different boards and architectures.
For example, include/configs/amcc-common.h provides a common look and feel for all boards by one specific vendor.
That's good idea to generate mv-common.h to abstract Marvell (kirkwood+orion specific )common definitions across the boards
Why not? The only drawback would be that some board would want to use a config different from what the common config has set (e.g., an Orion board with no MVSATAHC) but even then, the board config file would simply not include the common config, or include it and undefine or redefine some config elements.
Two (independant) comments:
1. If abstracting SoC configuration (which I'm fine with), maybe it would make more sense to abstract by SoC (i.e., kirkwood-common.h, orion5x-common.h...) -- or even by IP (i.e. mvgbe-common.h, mvsata-common.h...) rather than by "commonality".
2. Would it be worthwhile, from a readability/maintenability standpoint, to generalize the idea of SoC- and board-specific configs, and thus have board-specific includes in one directory and SoC-specific includes in another?
Regards.. Prafulla . .
Amicalement,