[U-Boot] [PATCH 8/8] Add support for the NXP LS1021A-TSN board

[Bin Meng]

Hi Vladimir,

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:46 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 05:18, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 4:04 AM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Bin,
> > >
> > > On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 at 08:05, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vladimir,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 1:50 AM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.wang at nxp.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The LS1021A-TSN is a development board built by VVDN/Argonboards in
> > > > > partnership with NXP.
> > > > >
> > > > > It features the LS1021A SoC and the first-generation SJA1105T Ethernet
> > > > > switch for prototyping implementations of a subset of IEEE 802.1 TSN
> > > > > standards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supported boot media: microSD card (via SPL), QSPI flash.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rev. A of the board uses a Spansion S25FL512S_256K serial flash, which
> > > > > is 64 MB in size and has an erase sector size of 256KB (therefore,
> > > > > flashing the RCW would erase part of U-boot).
> > > >
> > > > nits: U-Boot
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why don't you add a rule to scripts/checkpatch.pl that warns on
> > > improper spelling of U-Boot? It would save a lot of time on both ends.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, I once tried to add some misspelled word list of U-Boot to
> > spelling, but checkpatch would generate lots of false-positive
> > warnings (like u-boot.bin) so I gave it up. It seems that we need add
> > some special handling of U-Boot spelling in checkpatch? Do you have
> > better idea?
> >
>
> Ok, so I see that scripts/spelling.txt is case-insensitive, which
> doesn't work for what you want. I guess it just doesn't matter that
> much then?

Yes, it's case-insensitive, so it generates too many false-positive
warnings and I believe that may annoy people :)

> If it does matter to you, one way would be to add explicit checks in
> the checkpatch script itself.

I did not want to do that as the checkpath script is synced up from
Linux kernel upstream, and no U-Boot special handling should be
applied.

Regards,
Bin