[U-Boot] [PATCH 04/20] arm/km: add kmnusa board support

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Holger Brunck [mailto:holger.brunck at keymile.com]
> Sent: 12 June 2012 16:07
> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> Cc: Valentin Longchamp; prafulla at mavell.com; u-boot at lists.denx.de;
> Gerlando Falauto
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/20] arm/km: add kmnusa board support
> 
> On 06/12/2012 11:57 AM, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> >>>>  board/keymile/km_arm/km_arm.c     |    9 +-
> >>>>  boards.cfg                        |    1 +
> >>>>  include/configs/km/km_arm.h       |   44 +++++-
> >>>>  include/configs/km_kirkwood.h     |   67 +++++++--
> >>>>  6 files changed, 392 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> >>>>  create mode 100644 board/keymile/km_arm/128M16-1.cfg
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
> >>>> index 0445539..aa11268 100644
> >>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
> >>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> >>>> @@ -738,6 +738,7 @@ Sergey Lapin <slapin at ossfans.org>
> >>>>  Valentin Longchamp <valentin.longchamp at keymile.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>       km_kirkwood     ARM926EJS (Kirkwood SoC)
> >>>> +     kmnusa          ARM926EJS (Kirkwood SoC)
> >>>
> >>> Again.... I would like to suggest to separate out new boards
> >> addition, bugfixes/updates specific to km_*boards and generic
> kirkwood
> >> specific patches.
> >>>
> >>> It's always faster to merger small patch series that big one.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes ok, but was has this to do with this patch? What is meant to be
> >> kirkwood
> >> specific? This is all board related code.
> >
> > I agree, let's separate out -
> > 1. bugfix/updates patch series to current code
> > 2. "Kirkwood specific" means the changes to the Kirkwood related
> file that may affects other boards, for ex
> arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mach-kirkwood/*
> > 3. Additional board supports
> >
> > And if possible these patches should be independent so that can be
> pulled independently
> >
> 
> the only patch in the serie which modifies common Kirkwood related
> files are:
> [PATCH 03/20] arm/kirkwood: protect the ENV_SPI #defines
> 
> Do you want me to send this one seperately? I can do that. So then we
> resend
> again a new patch serie I guess...

It would be a great you can split 20 patches in to smaller patch series as per above suggestion.

> 
> The other stuff is only related to our boards and I would like to keep
> it as it
> is. It would cause a lot of rebasing and reorganisation and in the end
> the
> result is the same.

I can understand what you mean, I would be happy if you can keep this stuff small, simple and more structured (preferred least usage of #ifdef)

Regards..
Prafulla . . .