From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:11:42 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries In-Reply-To: <20140213072406.8AB443805FF@gemini.denx.de> References: <1390475369-30804-3-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> <20140212141756.37b071ce@lilith> <20140213143212.97DA.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> <20140213072406.8AB443805FF@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <20140221201142.GL16805@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 08:24:06AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Masahiro Yamada, > > In message <20140213143212.97DA.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> you wrote: > > > > 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". > > The make target name (and as such the entry in boards.cfg) selects a > specific board _configuration_, not a board family or such. We need a > convenient way for the user to selct any of the supported > configurations, and we also need a convenient way to actually list all > supported configurations (for example, to be able to build them all in > the autobuilder). > > As such, combining different configurations under a common name is not > possible. We do need separate entries for each and every > configuration (unless someone changes the implementation such that we > have another way fulfill the aforementioned requirements). OK, but we were generating the same exact code into the same binary, with just another name, and that's not useful. Or did we both miss something here? -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: