[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 2/2] boards.cfg: Delete the equivalent entries

[Masahiro Yamada]

Hello Albert,


> > 
> > 
> > > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries:
> > > >  - ep8248E           is equivalent to ep8248
> > > >  - MPC8360ERDK_66    is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK
> > > >  - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equivalent to Adder
> > > >  - EVB64260_750CX    is equivalent to EVB64260
> > > > 
> > > > I also notice
> > > >  - Lite5200           is equivalent to icecube_5200
> > > >  - Lite5200_LOWBOOT   is equivalent to icecube_5200_LOWBOOT
> > > >  - Lite5200_LOWBOOT08 is equivalent to icecube_5200_LOWBOOT08
> > > > But I am keeping them.
> > > > (Wolfgang suggested to do so because Lite5200* are referenced
> > > > in misc documents.)
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m at jp.panasonic.com>
> > > 
> > > I wonder (i.e., this is an open question) whether we should delete
> > > entries for different hardware just because they happen produce
> > > identical binaries.
> > 
> > In my option, we should not create multiple entries
> > pointing to the same config header.
> > 
> > We are already using single entry for different boards.
> > (In such a case, a wildcard character "x" is often used
> > but it is not must.)
> > For example, the entry "zynq_zc70x" is used for
> > both "Zynq ZC702" and "Zynq ZC706" board.
> > They are definitely different boards but the difference is quite
> > small. So we can use the same configuration for the two.
> > 
> > 
> > In the case of this patch,
> > (I am not familiar with "ep8248" board, but I guess)
> > ep8248 and ep8248E are different, but probably similar board.
> > 
> > So we can use the common entry "ep8248" for them.
> > And "ep8248" means  "ep8248 boards family",
> > not "exactly ep8248 board".
> 
> I agreed then boards.cfg ntries which point to the same config header
> *and* have the same config options in boards.cfg could be merged.
> 
> However, as you point out, and I agree, that some boards are
> *probably* similar enough to be merged, this "probably" shows that we
> do not know for sure the intent of the board maintainer.
> 
> Besides, we do not know which build procedure or script is out there
> which expects one board name or the other; merging entries would
> disrupt those procedures, so I want to be sure we are doing the right
> thing there.
> 
> Therefore, I would defer the decision of merging similar entries to the
> board maintainer(s), who is/are supposed to know best about this; at
> least, I would suggest to CC: them so that they can either Ack or Nak
> as they see fit.

I had already done this.

Please read this thread:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/307941/

All boards I am touching in this patch are surely unmaintained.
(So we cannot ask the reason why they added multiple entries.)

I tried to contact to their maintainers but all mails have been bouncing.

So I dropped Cc: tag when I posted v4.
Otherwise, I would get delivery failure notification mails
from STMP again and again.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada