[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] ARM: Update mach-types

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de]
> On Behalf Of Marek Vasut
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 9:13 PM
> To: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Cc: Valentin Longchamp; Holger Brunck
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] ARM: Update mach-types
> 
> On Monday, September 12, 2011 04:51:31 PM Valentin Longchamp wrote:
> > On 09/12/2011 04:20 PM, Holger Brunck wrote:
> > > On 09/12/2011 04:14 PM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> > >>>>> No, but then the respective maintainers will get a warning and
> will
> > >>>>> be forced to fix their boards in both linux and uboot.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Maybe the simplest way to catch these boards (if any) is to run
> > >>>> MAKEALL on arm targets with your mach-types file. If no board is
> > >>>> broken, we have not to worry about.
> > >>>
> > >>> sorry, I didn't follow the whole discussion, but this patch will
> remove
> > >>> the mach type for our km_kirkwood board.
> > >>>
> > >>> -#define MACH_TYPE_KM_KIRKWOOD          2255
> > >>>
> > >>> This board is supported in u-boot but not mainlined in linux. So
> how
> > >>> should we handle this?
> > >>
> > >> Well, I think we cannot check for each update of this file which
> board
> > >> are dropped - this requires too much effort. The way we currently
> use
> > >> (Linux is the master of this file, and we update it directly from
> the
> > >> kernel) is IMHO the right way to get it in sync.
> > >
> > > Yes I agree. And I think our KM_KIRKWOOD may be a special case,
> because
> > > in the past we were present in mainline mach-types, but during a
> cleanup
> > > we were dropped, because we missed to get the associated board
> > > mainlined.
> > >
> > >> Maybe the best way, if you want to have your board maintained in u-
> boot
> > >> but not in kernel (however, why ?) is to define your MACH in the
> board
> > >> configuration file.
> >
> > Just a short explanation on this strange situation where we have board
> > supported in u-boot but not in the mainline kernel. We wanted to have
> our
> > board supported in the mainline kernel, but with the current Linux
> > arm-consolidation effort where the goal is to have device tree taking
> care
> > of board support, this is not possible at the moment (patches would be
> > rejected or we would have to redo this work later).
> >
> > We are waiting for device tree support for kirkwood (which is not
> currently
> > available, I am not even sure this will eventually come, maybe we'll
> do it
> > on our own) to make a mainline effort for km_kirkwood. During this
> > timespan KM_KIRKWOOD got cleaned up from mach-types.

Well, I think this is the right approach at this moment.

Regards..
Prafulla . .