[U-Boot-Users] Configuration System

Sam Ravnborg sam at ravnborg.org
Fri Apr 30 23:46:39 CEST 2004

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:05:11AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 10:39, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > > With respect to selecting architecture it must be pretty genial,
> > > otherwise the current scheme is preferable.
> I confess, I am not sure what constitutes "genial" here.
> >From the high-level perspective, my current notion is to
> roughly ask three basic questions at the onset:
>     - What CPU Architecture is being targeted?
>       (ARM, MIPS, PPC, Xscale, etc)
>     - Given the CPU Architecture is now known, which processor
>       is being selected?  This might involve an intermediate step
>       in which a "family" of processors might be selected to help
>       narrow the selection.  For example, maybe it is OK to just
>       offer the 7 XSCALE processors directly (ixdp425, xm250, etc),
>       while the prolific PPC might do a PPC4xx, 82xx, 85xx, etc
>       selection for family in order to get to a specific cpu
>       such as the mpc8540.
>     - What board is being targeted?
>       (ADS, CDS, IceCube, etc)
>       Basically anything in u-boot/boards that is appropriate
>       for the given target CPU Arch or specific CPU.

It is better not asking less obvious questions.
So when I know I have board XXX why should I then select CPU and
CPU family.
On the other hand knowing that I want an ARM, then I expect to see a
list of available boards. Did I only select ARM9, again a even
smaller set of boards.

Maybe this was what you had in mind already - my point is that it
should be intuitive and simple. Simple from both a usage and
implementation point of view.

But I see all this as something that can come later, the better
approach is to start out small and incremental add more.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list