(Please do not use my @free.fr address to copy me on U-boot matters...)
Le 14/09/2011 08:39, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit :
-----Original Message----- From: Jason [mailto:u-boot@lakedaemon.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:47 PM To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; Albert Aribaud; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v7] dreamplug: initial board support.
Albert,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 03:00:59PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Prafulla,
In message<F766E4F80769BD478052FB6533FA745D1A114670B3@SC-
VEXCH4.marvell.com> you wrote:
Let's have Wolfgang's opinion on this, since this not aligned with
current
u-boot development strategy.
May be we can create a separate header file for tracking
(unsupported/tobe
supported) arm machine-types.
Actually this is for Albert to comment. He is the ARM custodian and has to live with the results.
Wolfgang, Marek Vasut, and I discussed this here [1]. To summarize, by declaring non-mainlined mach_types in the respective board config, an error will be thrown at compile time after mach-types.h is updated to include the mach_type.
The other idea is to have a separate file, say mach-types-local.h where all non-mainlined mach-types would be defined.
I will vote for this second approach so that it becomes independent change and anyone can update it in future.
Let's get Albert's opinion on this.
My opinion on the whole mach-type question is "if a board needs a mach-type it's because it will run Linux, so its mach-type should eventually be in the Linux mach-type list". As I understand it, the only case when is not there is because U-Boot support is submitted before Linux mainline support. Thus I second the idea of defining it in the board config header file, possibly even testing for it first and if it already exists, throwing a #error to remind the board maintainer to remove the now useless define from the config file.
Regards.. Prafulla . .
Amicalement,