From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shawn.guo@freescale.com (Shawn Guo)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:17:28 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 6/6] arm/imx: merge i.MX3 and i.MX6
In-Reply-To: <20110928121808.GY31404@pengutronix.de>
References: <1317201368-6403-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
	<1317201368-6403-7-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
	<20110928121808.GY31404@pengutronix.de>
Message-ID: <20110929051725.GA19318@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:18:08PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 05:16:08PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > 
> >  
> > -config ARCH_MX3
> > -	bool "MX3-based"
> > +config ARCH_IMX_V6_V7
> > +	bool "i.MX3, i.MX6"
> > +	select AUTO_ZRELADDR
> > +	select ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT
> 
> Russell pointed out that it's not a good idea to select this.
> 
Yeah, I saw that.  So you would support ZBOOT_ROM over single zImage
between these two?  I'm not sure how many imx users are actually using
ZBOOT_ROM.  If there are only very few, we still want to keep the
default configuration compatible with ZBOOT_ROM?  I think we can move
the default build to single zImage, and let those limited users sort
out their own configuration to get ZBOOT_ROM back.  After all, the
support is still there, and it's just about build configuration
adjustment.

Anyway, it's only my opinion, and the decision is on you plate.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn