[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot@aribaud.net>]

Hi Masahiro,

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:32:12 +0900, Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> wrote:

> Hello Albert,
> 
> 
> > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries:
> > >  - ep8248E           is equivalent to ep8248
> > >  - MPC8360ERDK_66    is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK
> > >  - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equivalent to Adder
> > >  - EVB64260_750CX    is equivalent to EVB64260
> > > 
> > > I also notice
> > >  - Lite5200           is equivalent to icecube_5200
> > >  - Lite5200_LOWBOOT   is equivalent to icecube_5200_LOWBOOT
> > >  - Lite5200_LOWBOOT08 is equivalent to icecube_5200_LOWBOOT08
> > > But I am keeping them.
> > > (Wolfgang suggested to do so because Lite5200* are referenced
> > > in misc documents.)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
> > 
> > I wonder (i.e., this is an open question) whether we should delete
> > entries for different hardware just because they happen produce
> > identical binaries.
> 
> In my option, we should not create multiple entries
> pointing to the same config header.
> 
> We are already using single entry for different boards.
> (In such a case, a wildcard character "x" is often used
> but it is not must.)
> For example, the entry "zynq_zc70x" is used for
> both "Zynq ZC702" and "Zynq ZC706" board.
> They are definitely different boards but the difference is quite
> small. So we can use the same configuration for the two.
> 
> 
> In the case of this patch,
> (I am not familiar with "ep8248" board, but I guess)
> ep8248 and ep8248E are different, but probably similar board.
> 
> So we can use the common entry "ep8248" for them.
> And "ep8248" means  "ep8248 boards family",
> not "exactly ep8248 board".

I agreed then boards.cfg ntries which point to the same config header
*and* have the same config options in boards.cfg could be merged.

However, as you point out, and I agree, that some boards are
*probably* similar enough to be merged, this "probably" shows that we
do not know for sure the intent of the board maintainer.

Besides, we do not know which build procedure or script is out there
which expects one board name or the other; merging entries would
disrupt those procedures, so I want to be sure we are doing the right
thing there.

Therefore, I would defer the decision of merging similar entries to the
board maintainer(s), who is/are supposed to know best about this; at
least, I would suggest to CC: them so that they can either Ack or Nak
as they see fit.

> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.