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

Kumar Gala galak at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Dec 5 15:23:47 CET 2006

On Dec 4, 2006, at 11:32 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> In message <45750057.3030400 at orkun.us> you wrote:
>> What I am saying is that you should rename existing CONFIG_MPC8349 to
>> CONFIG_MPC834X and only on the boards that actually use 8349  
>> define the
>> CONFIG_MPC8349 (in addition, not in lieu of). Of course other boards
>> using other member (8343, 8347) need to have their specific
>> CONFIG_MPC8343 and CONFIG_MPC8347 options defined appropriately as  
>> well
>> (again in addition to CONFIG_MPC834X). It is better to do this  
>> while the
>> number of boards is small.
>> Anyway, I just pointed to the existing practice in U-Boot. In the  
>> end,
>> it's probably Wolfgang's decision as U-Boot project leader.
> You said exactly what I had in mind. Just much better.

Ok, but I think the several of the boards are capable of running with  
all flavors of MPC834x what do we do for them?  I know the MDS is and  
I'm questing TQM834x is as well?

I understand the desire, I just feel that it doesn't add anything  
because we've done a decent job of making the differences between  
them covered by feature configs.

- k

More information about the U-Boot mailing list