[U-Boot] [PATCH] sunxi: Add new Mele_A1000G_quad defconfig

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 01-06-15 20:12, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 17:01 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> The Mele A1000G-quad and the Mele M9 have the same PCB, sofar we've been
>> using the same defconfig (and dts on the kernel side) for both models.
>> Unfortunately this does not work for the otg controller, on the M9 this
>> is routed to a micro-usb connector on the outside, while as on the
>> A1000G-quad it is connected to an usb to sata bridge.
>>
>> This commit adds a new defconfig for the Mele-A1000G-quad to allow using
>> different otg controller settings on the 2 boards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com>
>> diff --git a/configs/Mele_A1000G_quad_defconfig b/configs/Mele_A1000G_quad_defconfig
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..b93dcf5
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/configs/Mele_A1000G_quad_defconfig
>> @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>> +# The Mele A1000G quad is yet another Allwinnner based Android top set box
>> +# from Mele.
>> +#
>> +# It uses the same case as the original Mele A1000 and the same PCB as the M9,
>> +# the  USM sata storage slot is connected via anusb to sata bridge connected to
>> +# the otg controller, this renders the micro USB B receptacle non functional.
>> +#
>> +# It features an A31 SoC, 2G RAM, 16G Nand, 100Mbit ethernet, HDMI out,
>> +# 3 USB A receptacles, 3.5 mm jack for analog audio out, optical spdif,
>> +# RTL R8188EU (USB) wifi and a full size sdcard slot
>
> Have you seen the thread "Clean all defconfigs with savedefconfig" which
> we were copied on today? It seems that these comments are subject to
> automated cleansing :-/

<Explictly adding Tom to the list of recipients>

Tom, do we really want some autofoobar tool to mangle our defconfigs? Is there
a way we can opt out of this ?

Reasons to opt out:

1) Having comments like the one above on top of the defconfig files makes
it much easier for people to check if they are selecting the right defconfig

2) We deliberately duplicate some settings in defconfig files even though
they are the default since new users submitting new boards tend to copy and
paste an existing defconfig of a similar board and this way they have a short
list of settings to check against the actual board, because their board may
not be using the reference design pins which we use as defaults ...

So personally as sunxi maintainer I would like to opt out of this automatic
destruction of useful info in our defconfigs ...

> So we should put them somewhere else. Tom says there "in a README
> somewhere".
>
> Apart from that and assuming this matches the Linux patch you copied me
> on and _that_ gets accepted:
>
>          Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ijc at hellion.org.uk>

Thanks for the review.

Regards,

Hans