On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Henrik Nordström wrote:
mån 2012-11-12 klockan 12:43 -0500 skrev Robert P. J. Day:
after some playing around, i think i have a pretty good handle on the structure and usage of the boards.cfg file, except for what are apparently some oddities (not errors, just redundancies in some sense).
first, with lines like this:
apx4devkit arm arm926ejs apx4devkit bluegiga mxs apx4devkit m28evk arm arm926ejs m28evk denx mxs m28evk mx28evk arm arm926ejs mx28evk freescale mxs mx28evk
that last field would seem to be redundant, since the default value is just the name of the first (target) field, correct?
It can be different.
Does not need to be specified when it's the same.
right, that was the point i was trying to clarify -- that there is no value in specifying the board value in the final config options field if it's *exactly* the same as the target name.
i point this out only for the sake of someone (like me) new to looking at boards.cfg and wondering if there is some subtle difference in doing those two things. it's simply a matter of visual consistency, nothing more.
also odd is something like this:
mx31ads arm arm1136 - freescale mx31 mx31pdk arm arm1136 - freescale mx31 mx31pdk:NAND_U_BOOT
given that nothing else in the entire file refers to mx31pdk, it seems overly complicated for mx31pdk to refer to its own config file, only to add a preprocessor definition.
Yes, but syntax do not allow specifying defines without a config name I think.
i'm pretty sure that's true -- i just thought it was a bit strange to have a config file that is used by only one target and yet has additional defines added to it. (my first guess was that there was once some other board that also used "mx31pdk" as a basis, but that's just a guess.)
anyway, i think i have my questions answered, thanks.
rday