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

Kumar Gala galak at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Dec 5 18:42:13 CET 2006

On Dec 5, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> In message  
> <14A6A69F-9B58-42AB-985A-89F70DEB05A6 at kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>> Are you ok with having CONFIG_MPC8349 set in tqm834x.h?
> Yes, definitely.
>> So how should we set this for TQM834x?  Clearly MPC8349EMDS shouldn't
>> have it set, and MPC8349ITX should by your current description.
> TQM834x in it's current state should set CONFIG_MPC8349 as it was
> implemented and tested with MPC8349 only in mind.
>> Also, let me ask, what exactly does CONFIG_MPC8349 mean?  Does it
> It means that the board has a MPC8349 CPU mounted.
>> 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.
> For example, I use it for looking for boards with a specific  CPU  on
> it (by grepping in include/configs/ :-)

If the intent is for 'documentation' how about doing:

#define CONFIG_MPC8349	##

So that if someone uses CONFIG_MPC8349 you can a compile error.

- k

More information about the U-Boot mailing list