Hi!
Well, OTOH it is orthogonal problem to the "board name is shared between socrates and altera" and "config is shared between altera and virtual target". And this patch is going to go stale rather quickly.
I admit, I do not understand that fully.
There are no differences between EBV socrates and socfpga boards, currently.
to have our own configuration for our MCV module and this will certainly be sold by DENX. I think we need an infrastructure to allow for boards sold by arbitrary manufacturers all using the Altera chip.
The situation as such is not uncommon, so maybe you can follow examples from different CPUs? I.e. how is the imx6 handled on the different base boards?
The examples I seen were different: there different board vendors actually needed different code.
AFAICT, one solution would be to put "-" in that column, and do "git mv board/altera/ board/socfpga/".
Putting "-" in the vendor column just doesn't feel right.
That's what mx6 did, AFAICT.
How about using a minimal board C file for socrates under ebv/socrates that only implements checkboard and shares the rest?
That does not feel right, either. (Too much changes for too little gain.)
Actually.. there's nothing Altera specific in board/altera (it works on ebv just fine), so board/socfpga sounds like a better name. But I don't think such rename should be done lightly, so I still believe the patch as submitted is the best way to go.
But if we decide to go that way, it should really be separate patch.
I still like to see a solution that scales to things we already know will happen ;) Looking at the original patch, with this in mind even the #define ALTERA_BOARD_NAME doesn't look right any longer.
I don't know what will happen next. Albert asked me to resubmit patch updated to newer code, which I did.
Best regards, Pavel