[U-Boot-Users] Breakage of board ports on new features.

Kumar Gala galak at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Dec 5 00:33:10 CET 2006

On Dec 4, 2006, at 5:20 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:

> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> Are you absolutely sure we will *never* want to make a difference
>> between a MPC8349 and any other type of MPC834x?
>> What is the exact problem you're addressing?
> I think Kumar's point is that the code that's correctly marked with  
> CONFIG_MPC8349 is not 8349-specific.  It's 834x-specific, and there  
> already is a macro for 834x.  If someone were to add support for an  
> 8343 or 8347, they would need to apply Kumar's patch anyway.
> *IF* some of this code is really 8349-specific, then the person  
> adding support for the 8343 or 8347 would need to modify this code  
> again.  However, I don't think that's going to happen.

This is exactly what I'm saying.  The CONFIG_MPC8349 was too specific  
and really meant CONFIG_MPC834X and thus I changed it.  If/when  
someone's got something that is MPC8349 specific they can re- 
introduce CONFIG_MPC8349.

The only feature that is unique to 8349 is the 2nd PCI controller  
which we handle with CONFIG_MPC83XX_PCI2.  I'm hard pressed to see  
anyone actually every needing CONFIG_MPC8349 (but, now that I've  
stated that someone will come up with one).

- k

More information about the U-Boot mailing list