[U-Boot] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: allow use with Freescale 2.6.38 kernels

Troy Kisky troy.kisky at boundarydevices.com
Sun Mar 4 02:19:35 CET 2012

On 3/3/2012 6:30 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Dirk Behme,
> In message<4F52015A.2080003 at googlemail.com>  you wrote:
>>> Agreed.  If these patches were only for backward compatibility I would
>>> not complain much.  But they are known to introduce forward incompati-
>>> bilities with all this MACH_ID stuff, and this is what I would like to
>>> avoid.
>> Now I'm just trying to learn something regarding [1]:
>> Which changes would you accept in the category 'backward compatibility'?
> There are 3 commits in this series:
> [PATCH 1/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add CONFIG_REVISION_TAG
> [PATCH 2/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add MACH_TYPE_MX6Q_SABRELITE
> [PATCH 3/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add ext2 support
> I dislike #1 because it uses the completely undocumented
> CONFIG_REVISION_TAG, and I agree with Marek's and Stefano's comments.
> The problems I mentioned are with # 2, which now would depend on
> MACH_TYPE_MX6Q_SABRELITE, which may or may not exist.
> Also, I think we should not need this any more at all, as we now have
> DT support in Linux on ARM, too.
> I see no issues with # 3.
>> And which changes 'introduce forward incompatibilities', and what are
>> these incompatibilities?
> See the recent problems that occurred when RMK decided to "clean up"
> the machids file.
Would you rather that I take RMK's cleaned up file, and undelete the 
machines that u-boot
uses?  That would be more simple than adding to the board's config file.
I can delete all of the mach_is_xxx macros in mach-types while I'm at it.


More information about the U-Boot mailing list