[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/5] i.MX6: Add proper CONFIG_SOC_ names for MX6 architectures

[Jagan Teki]

Hi Stefano,

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Stefano Babic <sbabic at denx.de> wrote:
> Hi Jagan,
>
> sorry, I see patch is already V3, I have missed the previous ones. Anyway:
>
> On 26/03/2018 14:16, Jagan Teki wrote:
>> ARCH_MX6      -> ARCH_IMX6
>> MX6           -> SOC_IMX6
>> MX6D          -> SOC_IMX6D
>> MX6DL                 -> SOC_IMX6DL
>> MX6Q          -> SOC_IMX6Q
>> MX6S          -> SOC_IMX6S
>
>
> I do not understand which is the added value for this patchset, except
> that it could potentially break many boards. I can understand if there
> would be a name conflict with some other SOCs, but there is not.

For me CONFIG_MX6 doesn't look like SOC macro, until if we specify
SOC on it, and rest of architectures do follow the same and if you see
Linux about naming convention on imx6 this change way to sync that.

If we follow better naming and able to sync other arch along with
Linux and make no confusion with user, this change can applicable?

>
> Why should we soo in this way ?
>
>> MX6SL                 -> SOC_IMX6SL
>> MX6Sx                 -> SOC_IMX6SX
>> MX6SLL                -> SOC_IMX6SLL
>> MX6UL                 -> SOC_IMX6UL
>> MX6UL_LITESOM         -> SOC_IMX6UL_LITESOM
>> MX6UL_OPOS6UL         -> SOC_IMX6UL_OPOS6UL
>
> Well, and this is completely wrong. LITESOM is a SOM, not a SOC. So to
> be honest, we should have the hierarchy SOC (MX6UL) ==> SOM (LITESOM).
> But we have already, because both MX6UL and MX6UL_LITESOM are defined.
>
> IMHO this change would like to clean up, but it adds more confusion.

If your OK, I will split this change and send separate patches.

Jagan.