From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Babic Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:30:38 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] Add Boundary Devices Nitrogen6X boards In-Reply-To: <513DE411.4060802@boundarydevices.com> References: <1362873856-14785-1-git-send-email-eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> <20130310075948.035BA200642@gemini.denx.de> <513CA21E.1040608@boundarydevices.com> <20130310154511.C066D2010CD@gemini.denx.de> <513CB3F2.6080604@boundarydevices.com> <20130310220352.ED5432010CD@gemini.denx.de> <513D18F3.2010802@boundarydevices.com> <20130311111530.B709220013A@gemini.denx.de> <513DC852.9070806@denx.de> <513DDFCC.3000303@denx.de> <513DE411.4060802@boundarydevices.com> Message-ID: <513DEA8E.7070501@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 11/03/2013 15:02, Eric Nelson wrote: > Thanks Stefano, > > On 03/11/2013 06:44 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: >> On 11/03/2013 14:18, Fabio Estevam wrote: >>> Hi Stefano, >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: >>> >>>> As set previously, my position is, since RFC patches were pushed in >>>> January, that some kind of complexity can be well managed with SPL >>>> instead of with very SOC specific code. However, in the meantime I said >>>> explicitely that I was not against the current patchset in the form >>>> Eric >>>> posted now. I understand this can be seen as a temporary solution, but >>>> let's increase the number of users using these boards, and taking into >>>> account that some other pending patches can help to switch to SPL. >>>> >>>> In fact, there also other patchsets that I hope will be merged soon and >>>> will make the swicth to SPL easier - I mean Benoit's patches regarding >>>> NAND on MX5 and dropping old spl code from some boards. >>> >>> Just to make sure I understand the plan: >>> >>> Do you mean that you are willing to accept current Eric's series for >>> adding nitrogen support into 2013.04, and after this we should work on >>> converting it to the SPL mechanism for 2013.07? >> >> IMHO, yes. The long term solution is using SPL, as well as it is already >> used in other SOCs. But at the moment, I tend to not block the current >> series, taking into account that we have not yet a i.MX6 board with SPL. >> > > Then I'll forward a V3 (without get_ram_size()). > > Do you want me to restrict the number of configurations to the > "standard" memory configurations? Well, this could avoid that we add now a lot of files with the hope that later they will be cleanued up, and then this does not happen - and further configurations will be added later after switching to SPL. Best regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de =====================================================================