[U-Boot-Users] Breakage of board ports on new features.
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Dec 5 17:15:00 CET 2006
On Dec 5, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <F245C92A-F4A7-40AF-A73B-
> EB453262CB55 at kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>> 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 think so, but I cannot answer the before I've seen what TQ does on
> the TQM8347 :-(
Are you ok with having CONFIG_MPC8349 set in tqm834x.h?
>> 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.
> As Tolunay explained: it's for consistency with existing boards. And
> I really think it does not hurt ao much to have both CONFIG_MPC834X
> and CONFIG_MPC8349 in the board config file if this is a 8349 only
> board, even if CONFIG_MPC8349 should never be used anywhere in the
So how should we set this for TQM834x? Clearly MPC8349EMDS shouldn't
have it set, and MPC8349ITX should by your current description.
Also, let me ask, what exactly does CONFIG_MPC8349 mean? Does it
mean I'm on the subset of all MPC8349 revisions. Rev3.0 of MPC834x
adds DDR2 support so clearly CONFIG_MPC8349 can only be useful to
distinguish the subset of MPC8349 revisions.
Personally, I feel that defining it before it's clear there is a user
that needs it lends the define to be incorrectly used in the future.
More information about the U-Boot