[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/4] kconfig: arm: introduce symbol for ARM CPUs

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hello Masahiro,

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014 01:50:31 +0900, Masahiro YAMADA
<yamada.m at jp.panasonic.com> wrote:
> Hi Georges,
> 
> This patch is really appreciated, but I found some mistakes.
> Please see below:
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-10-27 7:25 GMT+09:00 Georges Savoundararadj <savoundg at gmail.com>:
> 
> > +config SYS_CPU
> > +        default "arm720t" if CPU_ARM720T
> > +        default "arm920t" if CPU_ARM920T
> > +        default "arm926ejs" if CPU_ARM926EJS
> > +        default "arm946es" if CPU_ARM946ES
> > +        default "arm1136" if CPU_ARM113
> > +        default "arm1176" if CPU_ARM1176
> > +        default "armv7" if CPU_V7
> > +        default "pxa" if CPU_PXA
> > +        default "sa1100" if CPU_SA1100
> > +
> 
> 
> [1] Typo.
> 
> s/CPU_ARM113/CPU_ARM1136/
> 
> 
> > @@ -472,6 +664,7 @@ config TEGRA
> >
> >  config TARGET_VEXPRESS_AEMV8A
> >         bool "Support vexpress_aemv8a"
> > +       select CPU_V7
> >         select ARM64
> >
> 
> [2]
> Your are changing this board from "armv8" to "armv7".
> Please remove "select CPU_V7".
> 
> 
> 
> [3]
> I thought you were trying to add only CPU_V7 and CPU_ARM1176
> but it is very nice to make extra efforts for our community.
> One problem is, if you add "CPU_PXA", you need to fix "common/lcd.c".
> Otherwise, you will get a new warning for such boards as palmld, palmtc,
> because CONFIG_CPU_PXA is defined and used in common/lcd.c,
> 
>   #if defined(CONFIG_CPU_PXA25X) || defined(CONFIG_CPU_PXA27X) || \
>           defined(CONFIG_CPU_MONAHANS)
>   #define CONFIG_CPU_PXA                   <------ remove
>   #include <asm/byteorder.h>
>   #endif
> 
> I think this change will *probably* produce the same output
> although I have not checked it closely yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [4]
> This patch is not applicable on the current master
> (commit d0796defbe8eff6fc3c27c893dcbc47af59d4764)
> You also need to add "select CPU_V7" to
> the new entry "TARGET_SUN6I" in arch/arm/Kconfig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you fix [1] thru [4], please?
> 
> 
> Before sending it, please do a quick test at least;
> it's very easy.
> 
> 
>   1.  Check out master branch
>   2.  Run "tools/genboardscfg.py"
>   3.  Run "mv  boards.cfg   boards.cfg.org"
>   4.  Apply your patch
>   5.  Run  "tools/genboardscfg.py" again
>   6.  Run  "diff  boards.cfg.org  boards.cfg"
> 
> If you get code diff,  something is wrong with your patch.
> You will easily see which board is corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom and Albert,
> 
> If Georges fixes those problems, is it possible to apply it shortly on
> the mainline?
> (directly u-boot/master? or via u-boot-arm/master?)

I'm ok with this patch going in (through either tree). However:

> Since this patch easily causes conflicts, it should not get stuck for
> a long time.

I'm not sure I'm getting this right. Do yo mean that once the patch is
in, it should be easy to detect and iron out issues because if some
boards are broken, their users will react promptly?

> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.