On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Monday 07 March 2011, Shawn Guo wrote: >> > Alternatively, it could be done the other way round: rename the identifiers >> > in the file from mx51_ to mx5_, and make sure that they don't contain >> > any mx51 specific settings but always refer to properties in the >> > device tree for the differences. >> > >> So our ultimate goal is to have only one board-dt.c in one mach-xxx? > > I wouldn't make that a strict rule, but I'd say that one goal should be > to have as few board-dt files as possible without adding complexity. > > As a start, we can say we want one file for per set of machines that > can run a common binary kernel, but there may be good reasons for > deviating from that rule on both sides.
+1, I completely agree. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
