[U-Boot] [PATCH for-next 2/3] sunxi: kconfig: Add top-level TARGET_SUNXI

[Masahiro YAMADA]

Hi Ian,

2014-10-24 22:22 GMT+09:00 Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk>:
> On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 20:46 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 20:14:29 +0100
>> Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 19:54 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> > > Hi Ian
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:27:19 +0100
>> > > Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>> > > Hi Ian,
>> > >
>> > > > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 10:39 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>> > > > > Hi Ian,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sat,  4 Oct 2014 09:48:11 +0100
>> > > > > Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > And make TARGET_SUN[457]I a choice variable under this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > configs updated with:
>> > > > > >     sed -i -e 's/^\+S:CONFIG_TARGET_SUN.I=y/+S:CONFIG_TARGET_SUNXI=y\n&/g' configs/*
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Perhaps, is ARCH_SUNXI more familiar?
>> > > >
>> > > > I've no idea ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > I think this is something which ought to be consistent within u-boot as
>> > > > a whole. Seems we have a mixture of ARCH_FOO (DAVINCI, VERSATILE,
>> > > > EXYNOS) and just FOO (TEGRA, ZYNQ). It does look like TARGET_FOO is all
>> > > > individual boards though, which would make it inappropriate for SUNXI or
>> > > > even SUN[4567]I.
>> > >
>> > > SoC/board select menu clean-up is on the way.
>> > > I have to admit the naming convention is inconsistent now.
>> > >
>> > > CONFIG_ARCH_{DAVINCI, VERSATILE, EXYNOS} were added recently.
>> > > If Xilinx/NVIDIA developers argree, we can rename
>> > > CONFIG_{TEGRA, ZYNQ} -> CONFIG_ARCH_{TEGRA, ZYNQ} at some point.
>> >
>> > So we want CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI as well as CONFIG_ARCH_SUN[45678]I? Or did
>> > you mean for the latter to remain CONFIG_TARGET_SUN[45678]I?
>>
>>
>> I think the latter should remain CONFIG_TARGET_*.
>> Or I think it is also OK to follow arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig of Linux.
>
> So either: CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI + CONFIG_TARGET_SUN[45678]I
> Or: CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI + CONFIG_MACH_SUN[45679]I?

I personally prefer the latter.

> I'm not too fussed but I think the second sounds good and leaves
> CONFIG_TARGET_* available for the individual boards if we end up
> wanting/needing that. Sound good to everyone?

Fully agreed with your
"[U-Boot,v2,0/7] sunxi: Kconfig consolidation and cleanup" series.

Thank you!




-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada