[U-Boot] [PATCH v7] dreamplug: initial board support.

[Jason]

Albert, Prafulla, Wolfgang,

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 07:58:14PM +0200, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 14/09/2011 08:39, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 03:00:59PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>>> In message<F766E4F80769BD478052FB6533FA745D1A114670B3 at SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com>  you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's have Wolfgang's opinion on this, since this not aligned with
>>>>> current u-boot development strategy.
>>>>>
>>>>> May be we can create a separate header file for tracking
>>>>> (unsupported/tobe supported) arm machine-types.
>>>>
>>>> Actually this is for Albert to comment.  He is the ARM custodian and
>>>> has to live with the results.
>>>
>>> Wolfgang, Marek Vasut, and I discussed this here [1].  To summarize, by
>>> declaring non-mainlined mach_types in the respective board config, an
>>> error will be thrown at compile time after mach-types.h is updated to
>>> include the mach_type.
>>>
>>> The other idea is to have a separate file, say mach-types-local.h where
>>> all non-mainlined mach-types would be defined.
>>
>> I will vote for this second approach so that it becomes independent
>> change and anyone can update it in future.
>>
>> Let's get Albert's opinion on this.
>
> My opinion on the whole mach-type question is "if a board needs a  
> mach-type it's because it will run Linux, so its mach-type should  
> eventually be in the Linux mach-type list". As I understand it, the only  
> case when is not there is because U-Boot support is submitted before  
> Linux mainline support.

Yes, this is true.  There is also the corner case where the developer
motivated to do the work (me) is still learning devicetree, and Linux
won't take new boards for arm unless they are clearly devicetree. :-)

> Thus I second the idea of defining it in the  board config header
> file, possibly even testing for it first and if it  already exists,
> throwing a #error to remind the board maintainer to  remove the now
> useless define from the config file.

Sounds good, I should have a new version up in a few hours.  

As for my original question, since this patch series has had several
versions on the mailinglist [1] prior to the close of the merge window,
is it still possible to get it in for 2011.09?

thx,

Jason.

[1] http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2011-June/094056.html