[U-Boot] Update and Cut down mach types

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Le 20/04/2011 21:26, Michael Schwingen a écrit :
> On 04/20/2011 07:49 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>> Le 20/04/2011 19:15, Michael Schwingen a écrit :
>>
>>> Why don't we pull the original master mach-types file, and generate the
>>> required .h file(s) during make using the same (or a similar) script
>>> Linux uses?
>> Hmm, because it would mean maintaining the same script as Linux uses.
>> With the current solution, there's work to be done on mach-types only
>> when someone needs new machine IDs.
> I don't see how much maintaining the script would need - if the input
> format does not change, the script does not need changes, and if changes
> are needed, the can be copied 1:1 from the Linux version.
>
> On the plus side: the mach-types file is much more terse than the
> generated headers, so updates that pull in new machines would generate
> diffs that are a lot smaller than they are now.
>
>
>>>> Have you checked that none of the removed boards are in U-Boot tree?
>>>> Because if there are some, then their build will be broken...
>>> It will break ACTUX1-ACTUX4 (which are in-tree, and work fine as soon as
>>> the relocation-breakage-patch is accepted), plus  DVLHOST, for which I
>>> have patches submitted to add support.
>>>
>>> For my own boards, I can go to the ARM machine database, touch the
>>> entry, and wait until the define re-emerges in Linux, and await until
>>> that is marged back to u-boot, but this is plain silly. However, for
>>> DVLHOST, I am not the registered maintainer in the machine database, so
>>> I would have to create a duplicate entry for this to work.
>> IIUC the machines that would disappear are those for which the is no
>> actual mainline Linux support and which have not been touched in over a
>> year, right? Do ACTUX* and DVLHOST boards fit in this description?
> Yes. The ACTUX board ports are by me, while the DVLHOST machine type
> seems to be allocated by the manufacturer, Devolo, who never mainlined
> their Linux adaptions, so my goal is to get an independent port up.
> However, that means I can't update the machine type to get it back in
> mainline Linux by the 12-month-rule.
>
> cu
> Michael

Michael, for the time being, can you provide a patch over Sandeep's 
update to reintroduce ACTUX* and DVLHOST? I'll consider it as a bugfix 
and apply it before my pull request.

For the longer term, let us keep on weighting the pros and cons of the 
options we have for handling machine types.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.