[U-Boot-Users] Breakage of board ports on new features.
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-
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).
More information about the U-Boot