From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Thompson Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:48:25 +0100 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: <4E6E1BB9.6030001@ge.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 12/09/11 15:14, Stefano Babic wrote: > On 09/12/2011 04:04 PM, Holger Brunck wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 09/12/2011 03:54 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: >>> On 09/12/2011 03:36 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> Have you checked that the removed boards are not supported in U-Boot? >>>> 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. > > Maybe the best way, if you want to have your board maintained in u-boot > but not in kernel (however, why ?) Maybe a board that uses some other OS? > is to define your MACH in the board > configuration file. > > Best regards, > Stefano Babic > Nick.