Hi Stefano,
Le Sun, 30 Mar 2014 18:20:49 +0200, Stefano Babic sbabic@denx.de a écrit :
I jump directly to V4 ;-) Sorry for late review, I was not in office last days.
Added Ben in CC. He sent a first version for the Marsboard.
On 29/03/2014 22:29, Eric Bénard wrote:
this board is produced by Embest/Element 14 and is based on i.MX6 Solo The following features are tested :
- UART2 (console)
- eMMC
- SDCard
- uSDCard
- Ethernet
- USB Host (through 4 ports hub)
- HDMI output
- I2C 1/2/3
- LVDS TFT with LCD8000-97C from Embest/Element 14
Boot on eMMC and through USB loader are tested.
For more informations on this board : http://www.riotboard.org/
Signed-off-by: Eric Bénard eric@eukrea.com
A general remark. I agree by reading the whole thread about checking at runtime which is the running board (you do it getting the cpu type).
However, you use also a compiler switch mechanism, adding RIOTBOARD or MARSBOARD in the boards.cfg. You have implemented two ways to for the same thing. This makes in principle your runtime detection useless, because you can use #if CONFIG_MARSBOARD instead of "if board_type == BOARD_IS_MARSBOARD)".
True, as said in the log, anyway at the moment the same code can't run on both boards because of the different CPU (Solo vs Dual - and not Dual Lite).
Is it possible to use only the runtime detection ? I think the main problem is CONFIG_ENV_IS_*, that is different for the two boards. What do you think about it ?
I'll see how we can handle the 2 CONFIG_ENV_IS with runtime detection.
IMHO you could also squash the two patches together. You add new files, and patch 2/2 changes some of them. I think in this case having a single patch makes review easier.
OK no problem.
- /* from linux/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c :
Codestyle in U-Boot for multiline comments is:
/*
- ...
*/
OK will fix. FWIW checkpatch doesn't provide any warning concerning this problem.
+int board_video_skip(void) +{ ..././//
We have already discussed in the past about this function. Each board (at least, imx6 board) want to have such of them, and code is duplicated. What about to factorize it ? I am not against to move it into imx-common, if we generally agree, but I would like to avoid to duplicate this function for each board.
OK, if I understand correctly you want me to factorize it ? ;-) I'll see what I can do there.
Thanks, Eric