[U-Boot] [PATCH] Nokia RX-51: Use generic board
Generic board with #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD is working fine. There is no visible difference between legacy and generic board code.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com --- include/configs/nokia_rx51.h | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/configs/nokia_rx51.h b/include/configs/nokia_rx51.h index 982b689..46fc91e 100644 --- a/include/configs/nokia_rx51.h +++ b/include/configs/nokia_rx51.h @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ #define CONFIG_OMAP3_RX51 /* working with RX51 */ #define CONFIG_SYS_L2CACHE_OFF /* pretend there is no L2 CACHE */ #define CONFIG_OMAP_COMMON +#define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD
#define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE MACH_TYPE_NOKIA_RX51
On Thu 2015-01-15 10:26:36, Pali Rohár wrote:
Generic board with #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD is working fine. There is no visible difference between legacy and generic board code.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com
Thanks!
Acked-by: Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz
(I added Albert Aribaud to the To: list, as he's an ARM maintainer IIRC).
Pavel
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:26:36AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
Generic board with #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD is working fine. There is no visible difference between legacy and generic board code.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com Acked-by: Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz
Applied to u-boot-ti/master, thanks!
On Friday 30 January 2015 15:19:53 Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:26:36AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
Generic board with #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD is working fine. There is no visible difference between legacy and generic board code.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com Acked-by: Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz
Applied to u-boot-ti/master, thanks!
Tom, or anybody else, in future when you are going to change some parts in u-boot and remove boards which do not convert in time... please can you contact me about it (via email, I see that contact info in file board/nokia/rx51/MAINTAINERS is correct)? I'm not following u-boot ML and I really did not know that conversion to generic board code is required before end of last year...
Basically Maemo users & developers use uboot v2013.04 version and for Nokia N900 there is no new functionality in new uboot versions. So there is nothing like "new features & fixed bugs" motivation.
But I do not want to see n900 board code removed from uboot as uboot bootloader is for n900 really useful (most for end-users who does not even know about existence of git, uboot ML, etc).
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 03:49:08PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
On Friday 30 January 2015 15:19:53 Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:26:36AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
Generic board with #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD is working fine. There is no visible difference between legacy and generic board code.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com Acked-by: Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz
Applied to u-boot-ti/master, thanks!
Tom, or anybody else, in future when you are going to change some parts in u-boot and remove boards which do not convert in time... please can you contact me about it (via email, I see that contact info in file board/nokia/rx51/MAINTAINERS is correct)? I'm not following u-boot ML and I really did not know that conversion to generic board code is required before end of last year...
Basically Maemo users & developers use uboot v2013.04 version and for Nokia N900 there is no new functionality in new uboot versions. So there is nothing like "new features & fixed bugs" motivation.
But I do not want to see n900 board code removed from uboot as uboot bootloader is for n900 really useful (most for end-users who does not even know about existence of git, uboot ML, etc).
Before we do the (very soon now, -rc1 comes Monday) nuking, any board with a MAINTAINERS will get a CC, yes. But I expect MAINTAINERS to do some sort of sanity test at least once every few releases, especially since we have a regular release cycle.
On Friday 30 January 2015 17:09:48 Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 03:49:08PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
On Friday 30 January 2015 15:19:53 Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:26:36AM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote:
Generic board with #define CONFIG_SYS_GENERIC_BOARD is working fine. There is no visible difference between legacy and generic board code.
Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár pali.rohar@gmail.com Acked-by: Pavel Machek pavel@ucw.cz
Applied to u-boot-ti/master, thanks!
Tom, or anybody else, in future when you are going to change some parts in u-boot and remove boards which do not convert in time... please can you contact me about it (via email, I see that contact info in file board/nokia/rx51/MAINTAINERS is correct)? I'm not following u-boot ML and I really did not know that conversion to generic board code is required before end of last year...
Basically Maemo users & developers use uboot v2013.04 version and for Nokia N900 there is no new functionality in new uboot versions. So there is nothing like "new features & fixed bugs" motivation.
But I do not want to see n900 board code removed from uboot as uboot bootloader is for n900 really useful (most for end-users who does not even know about existence of git, uboot ML, etc).
Before we do the (very soon now, -rc1 comes Monday) nuking, any board with a MAINTAINERS will get a CC, yes. But I expect MAINTAINERS to do some sort of sanity test at least once every few releases, especially since we have a regular release cycle.
Sanity test on n900 device means to build image and run it. And it is working. Because uboot write warning message to stdout and n900 screen (where is my stdout) is too small it is very early rewritten by next messages. And if error message is print before uboot set stdout to screen I was not able to read it. So I did not have to know about that warning... Do not remember that community members do not have special equipment for debugging early stage bootloader errors and also do not have special Nokia (TM) serial console cable, pins & handler...
I think it is better to CC maintainers immediately after you decide and create such warning and not one year later.
Hello Tom,
On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:09:48 -0500, Tom Rini trini@ti.com wrote:
But I expect MAINTAINERS to do some sort of sanity test at least once every few releases, especially since we have a regular release cycle.
How about Bcc:ing all maintainers upon each release announcement to the list?
-- Tom
Amicalement,
participants (4)
-
Albert ARIBAUD -
Pali Rohár -
Pavel Machek -
Tom Rini