I agree with York. Keep the name as is-- ls2080a. We already went through the name change from ls2085a to ls2080a last year in Linux and in u-boot and there is no reason to go back. The fact that the RDB boards have the wrong name printed on them is not enough reason to revert what we already did. The product is "ls2080a".

Thanks, Stuart

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:48 PM, york sun york.sun@nxp.com wrote:

On 01/20/2016 04:46 AM, Ashish Kumar wrote:

...

• LS2085ARDB and LS2085AQDS host LS2080A and LS2085A, So update model and board name.

Signed-off-by: Ashish Kumar Ashish.Kumar@nxp.com

arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-qds.dts | 2 +- arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-rdb.dts | 2 +- board/freescale/ls2080aqds/ls2080aqds.c | 3 +-- board/freescale/ls2080ardb/ls2080ardb.c | 4 +--- 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-qds.dts b/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-qds.dts index 547ec27..7b1dae8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-qds.dts +++ b/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-qds.dts @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ #include "fsl-ls2080a.dtsi"

/ {

• model = "Freescale Layerscape 2080a QDS Board";
  

• model = "Freescale Layerscape 2085a QDS Board";
  compatible = "fsl,ls2080a-qds", "fsl,ls2080a";
  
  aliases {
  

diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-rdb.dts b/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-rdb.dts index 1a1813b..71d1969 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-rdb.dts +++ b/arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls2080a-rdb.dts @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ #include "fsl-ls2080a.dtsi"

/ {

• model = "Freescale Layerscape 2080a RDB Board";
  

• model = "Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board";
  compatible = "fsl,ls2080a-rdb", "fsl,ls2080a";
  
  aliases {
  

diff --git a/board/freescale/ls2080aqds/ls2080aqds.c b/board/freescale/ls2080aqds/ls2080aqds.c index aa256a2..fe20f3a 100644 --- a/board/freescale/ls2080aqds/ls2080aqds.c +++ b/board/freescale/ls2080aqds/ls2080aqds.c @@ -61,8 +61,7 @@ int checkboard(void) "100 separate SSCG"}; int clock;

• cpu_name(buf);
  

• printf("Board: %s-QDS, ", buf);
  

• printf("Board: LS2085A-QDS, ");
  
  sw = QIXIS_READ(arch);
  printf("Board Arch: V%d, ", sw >> 4);
  

diff --git a/board/freescale/ls2080ardb/ls2080ardb.c b/board/freescale/ls2080ardb/ls2080ardb.c index c63b639..ccf98c9 100644 --- a/board/freescale/ls2080ardb/ls2080ardb.c +++ b/board/freescale/ls2080ardb/ls2080ardb.c @@ -54,10 +54,8 @@ unsigned long long get_qixis_addr(void) int checkboard(void) { u8 sw;

• char buf[15];
  
  

• cpu_name(buf);
  

• printf("Board: %s-RDB, ", buf);
  

• printf("Board: LS2085A-RDB, ");
  
  sw = QIXIS_READ(arch);
  printf("Board Arch: V%d, ", sw >> 4);
  
  

I don't like these changes. When this product was defined, it was named LS2085A. So consequently the boards were name as LS2085AQDS and LS2085ARDB. Later the primary product was renamed to LS2080A. LS2085A became a personality. So the names in U-Boot were changed.

Without these proposed changes, the only mismatch is between the U-Boot target and the label on the board. I don't see changing back the board names makes anything clear. Actually it makes more confusion when U-Boot reports SoC as LS2080A, but the board name as LS2085AQDS (or RDB).

In my opinion, a sticker on the board covering LS2085A is a better solution.

York

---

U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot