On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:05:11AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 10:39, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
With respect to selecting architecture it must be pretty genial, otherwise the current scheme is preferable.
I confess, I am not sure what constitutes "genial" here.
From the high-level perspective, my current notion is to
roughly ask three basic questions at the onset:
- What CPU Architecture is being targeted? (ARM, MIPS, PPC, Xscale, etc) - Given the CPU Architecture is now known, which processor is being selected? This might involve an intermediate step in which a "family" of processors might be selected to help narrow the selection. For example, maybe it is OK to just offer the 7 XSCALE processors directly (ixdp425, xm250, etc), while the prolific PPC might do a PPC4xx, 82xx, 85xx, etc selection for family in order to get to a specific cpu such as the mpc8540. - What board is being targeted? (ADS, CDS, IceCube, etc) Basically anything in u-boot/boards that is appropriate for the given target CPU Arch or specific CPU.
It is better not asking less obvious questions. So when I know I have board XXX why should I then select CPU and CPU family. On the other hand knowing that I want an ARM, then I expect to see a list of available boards. Did I only select ARM9, again a even smaller set of boards.
Maybe this was what you had in mind already - my point is that it should be intuitive and simple. Simple from both a usage and implementation point of view.
But I see all this as something that can come later, the better approach is to start out small and incremental add more.
Sam