[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] lkc support for U-Boot

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <200211070823.59506.h.schurig at mn-logistik.de> you wrote:
>
> config LONGHELP
>   bool "Include long help texts"
>   default n if ARCH_VERYSMALLBOARD

Why are all these things named ARCH_*?

I think the we should have only  ARCH_PPC  and  ARCH_ARM.  The  other
things you mentioned so far are not architecture specific - they were
related to CPUs, boards, configurations, ...

>     This add approx XX kB to U-Boot, so please be sure that the resulting
>     binary still fit's into your EEPROM or FLASH.

Ummm... I see what you mean. I guess  I'd  have  to  see  a  complete
working example first.

> Currently I have one bigger u-boot/config.in file, defining all the basic 
> stuff. This one include u-boot/boards/config.in which in turn can include any 
> board-specific u-boot/boards/<someboard>/config.in file --- or not.
> 
> So it is absolutely no problem to have in u-boot/boards/<someboard>/config.in 
> an entry like

But that means that the configuration for one  board  is  distributed
over  3 (or more?) config.in files. It has certain advantages to have
it concentrated in one place...

> > And combining a lkc created config file with
> > a  second,  board private config file, seems contraproductivee to me.
> 
> Not for me. Look at the kernel or at OpenZaurus. Both of this systems are 
> build around lot's of config.in files in various directories. It's much 
> easier to maintain and understand this way.

I disagree. It is much more complicated to find  all  config  options
relevant  to  once  specific  system,  and  requires  a  much  better
understanding  of  the  config  mechanism  to   add   a   new   board
configuration - correctly, that is.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
See us @ electronica 2002 in Munich, Nov 12-15, Hall A3, Booth A3.325