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

Tolunay Orkun listmember at orkun.us
Tue Dec 5 02:13:23 CET 2006

Kumar Gala wrote:
> 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 AMCC 4XX based boards we define CONFIG_PPC4XX (for the family) as well 
as CONFIG_PPC405GP (for example) for specific processor support. The X'd 
version is used to enable common code while the specific version is used 
whenever divergences exist from the common code. Right now there might not 
be a specific difference from MPC8349 code but it might be good to define 
both MPC8349 and MPC834X for sake of consistency and for future proofing. 
Without defining the specific version when it is time to introduce that 
divergence you would wonder what boards were using the MPC8349 and what not 
(unless the board name gives it away).


More information about the U-Boot mailing list