From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:56:37 -0300
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mx6qsabresd: Add basic support
In-Reply-To: <4F86B3D1.3000501@denx.de>
References: <1334158122-15219-1-git-send-email-festevam@gmail.com>
	<4F86B3D1.3000501@denx.de>
Message-ID: <CAOMZO5DvENqre5Tzu7O5xmUTgT7vNp3TkDQqADGpqBP4EzTF_Q@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Stefano,

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote:

> This file is identical to imximage.cfg for the mx6qsabrelite board. I
> can imagine this is derived board. Why cannot we implement it as a
> variant of the original one ? We have several example in u-boot, for
> example the efika (MX51), or the TAM3517 (ok, I admit I know this very
> well because I did it...), or imx27-lite /magnesium, or....

After a long time, I am returning on adding support to mx6qsabresd.

I have been comparing mx6qsabrelite against mx6qsabresd and I have
started to do as you suggested: unify the 2 boards into
mx6qsabrelite.c.

What I realize is that the differences are relevant: UART1 pin muxing,
SDHC ports, SDHC card detect GPIO, USB Host enable port, I2C devices,
Ethernet PHY, etc.

It seems to me that the code is becoming polluted by all the ifdef's I
need to place in order to handle both boards, and I am starting to
think if it wouldn't be better to follow with the original approach of
adding a board/freescale/mx6qsabresd directory.

After I finish mx6qsabresd, I also plan to add one more mx6q board,
and this would mean even more ifdefs, which would make the code even
harder to read.

Please let me know what you think.

Regards,

Fabio Estevam