On 3/3/2012 6:30 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Dirk Behme,
In message4F52015A.2080003@googlemail.com you wrote:
Agreed. If these patches were only for backward compatibility I would not complain much. But they are known to introduce forward incompati- bilities with all this MACH_ID stuff, and this is what I would like to avoid.
Now I'm just trying to learn something regarding [1]:
Which changes would you accept in the category 'backward compatibility'?
There are 3 commits in this series:
[PATCH 1/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add CONFIG_REVISION_TAG [PATCH 2/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add MACH_TYPE_MX6Q_SABRELITE [PATCH 3/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add ext2 support
I dislike #1 because it uses the completely undocumented CONFIG_REVISION_TAG, and I agree with Marek's and Stefano's comments.
The problems I mentioned are with # 2, which now would depend on MACH_TYPE_MX6Q_SABRELITE, which may or may not exist.
Also, I think we should not need this any more at all, as we now have DT support in Linux on ARM, too.
I see no issues with # 3.
And which changes 'introduce forward incompatibilities', and what are these incompatibilities?
See the recent problems that occurred when RMK decided to "clean up" the machids file.
Would you rather that I take RMK's cleaned up file, and undelete the machines that u-boot uses? That would be more simple than adding to the board's config file. I can delete all of the mach_is_xxx macros in mach-types while I'm at it.
Thanks Troy