From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:42:38 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] ARM: Update mach-types In-Reply-To: <4E6E1C73.9090600@keymile.com> References: <1315799692-16076-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <4E6E1524.2050904@keymile.com> <4E6E1C73.9090600@keymile.com> Message-ID: <201109121742.38877.marek.vasut@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, September 12, 2011 04:51:31 PM Valentin Longchamp wrote: > On 09/12/2011 04:20 PM, Holger Brunck wrote: > > On 09/12/2011 04:14 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: > >>>>> No, but then the respective maintainers will get a warning and will > >>>>> be forced to fix their boards in both linux and uboot. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe the simplest way to catch these boards (if any) is to run > >>>> MAKEALL on arm targets with your mach-types file. If no board is > >>>> broken, we have not to worry about. > >>> > >>> sorry, I didn't follow the whole discussion, but this patch will remove > >>> the mach type for our km_kirkwood board. > >>> > >>> -#define MACH_TYPE_KM_KIRKWOOD 2255 > >>> > >>> This board is supported in u-boot but not mainlined in linux. So how > >>> should we handle this? > >> > >> Well, I think we cannot check for each update of this file which board > >> are dropped - this requires too much effort. The way we currently use > >> (Linux is the master of this file, and we update it directly from the > >> kernel) is IMHO the right way to get it in sync. > > > > Yes I agree. And I think our KM_KIRKWOOD may be a special case, because > > in the past we were present in mainline mach-types, but during a cleanup > > we were dropped, because we missed to get the associated board > > mainlined. > > > >> Maybe the best way, if you want to have your board maintained in u-boot > >> but not in kernel (however, why ?) is to define your MACH in the board > >> configuration file. > > Just a short explanation on this strange situation where we have board > supported in u-boot but not in the mainline kernel. We wanted to have our > board supported in the mainline kernel, but with the current Linux > arm-consolidation effort where the goal is to have device tree taking care > of board support, this is not possible at the moment (patches would be > rejected or we would have to redo this work later). > > We are waiting for device tree support for kirkwood (which is not currently > available, I am not even sure this will eventually come, maybe we'll do it > on our own) to make a mainline effort for km_kirkwood. During this > timespan KM_KIRKWOOD got cleaned up from mach-types. > Well, Russell went insane I guess ? > Valentin Longchamp > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot at lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot