From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Holger Brunck Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:20:20 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] ARM: Update mach-types In-Reply-To: <4E6E13BC.7080802@denx.de> References: <1315799692-16076-1-git-send-email-marek.vasut@gmail.com> <4E6DD6AB.2080809@compulab.co.il> <201109121536.47545.marek.vasut@gmail.com> <4E6E0EF9.1090307@denx.de> <4E6E1177.3010607@keymile.com> <4E6E13BC.7080802@denx.de> Message-ID: <4E6E1524.2050904@keymile.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 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. > ok I will do this. When is this patch supposed to go in? regards Holger