-----Original Message----- From: Jason Cooper [mailto:jason@lakedaemon.net] Sent: 14 February 2013 13:44 To: Daniel Stodden Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; Luka Perkov; Sebastian Hesselbarth; Rabeeh Khoury; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Andy@theia.denx.de; Fleming Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 00/10] Add Marvell Dove and SolidRun CuBox
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:35:47PM -0800, Daniel Stodden wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 13:38 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 02:46:57PM -0800, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Luka Perkov [mailto:luka@openwrt.org] Sent: 11 February 2013 02:08 To: Sebastian Hesselbarth Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Rabeeh Khoury;
Albert
Aribaud; Andy Fleming; Joe Hershberger; Daniel Stodden Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Add Marvell Dove and SolidRun
CuBox
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:43:00AM +0100, Sebastian
Hesselbarth wrote:
u-boot has kwboot for kirkwood since ages, but the general
functionality
to boot through UART boot mode also applies to above SoCs. I
took
kwbimage to reflect that kwboot should be used for booting
this
image.
IMHO introducing new abbreviated image names like dvbimage
will just
distract people from using the correct tool to boot it.
kwboot will
not
be renamed, will it?
I don't mind if we rename kwboot to lets say mvebu-boot. That
name
would fit for kirkwood, dove and armada SoCs in the future...
That's good idea. I vote for renaming kwboot as "mvboot", that will inline with
predefined file naming strategy.
Is kwboot practically extensible to mmp and pxa?
If those have a similar mechanism, and it happens to be based on
Xmodem,
then there's probably sharable ground.
The boot message protocol on Marvell chips is a fairly ad-hoc
construct.
right, I was more concerned with the naming convention. At least in the kernel, mvebu includes all Marvell SoCs _except_ mmp and pxa. I would presume mv would be an all-inclusive name.
I didn't really have a strong opinion on it, so I'm fine either way. In hindsight, I'd prefer not to type 'mvebu-boot'...
If the code or tool is being shared between more that one Marvell SoCs, it makes sense to use mv_** naming convention. This is to inline with the Marvell's naming strategy implemented so far in u-boot code.
Whereas, we can always have <soc>_<functionality> type of naming conventions for specific implementation.
At present, kwboot is specific to Kirkwood, the support is being extended for Dove and latter few more.. so it makes sense to rename it as mvboot.
I need to check whether kwboot is practically extensible to mmp and pxa, but it makes sense to rename it as mvboot since it supports more than Kirkwood.
Regards.. Prafulla . . .