[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] lkc support for U-Boot
wd at denx.de
Thu Nov 7 09:45:49 CET 2002
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.
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
More information about the U-Boot