Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-03 Thread Stephen Warren
On 07/02/2013 02:40 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:58:51AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/02/2013 10:28 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> I'm wondering about something and looking for input. As has >>> come up a few times now, we have the ability for a single >>>

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-03 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:45:46PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Tom Rini, > > In message <20130702162829.GG16630@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > > > That said, when others have suggested something like this before, > > Wolfgang has pointed out and NAK'd the idea of adding N different > > confi

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-03 Thread Lukasz Majewski
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:40:08 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: Hi Tom, > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:58:51AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 07/02/2013 10:28 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > > > > > I'm wondering about something and looking for input. As has come > > > up a few times now, we have

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-02 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Stephen Warren, In message <51d314db.2010...@wwwdotorg.org> you wrote: > > Can there be a single generic binary, which is configured at run-time > by device-tree? Tegra and at least some Samsung Exynos boards (snow I > guess) seem headed that way, although the conversion is nowhere near > com

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-02 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Tom Rini, In message <20130702162829.GG16630@bill-the-cat> you wrote: > > That said, when others have suggested something like this before, > Wolfgang has pointed out and NAK'd the idea of adding N different > configuration as that adds (potentially) a lot of build time for > custodians/etc

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-02 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:58:51AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 07/02/2013 10:28 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > Hey guys, > > > > I'm wondering about something and looking for input. As has come > > up a few times now, we have the ability for a single binary to run > > on a few systems (there's bot

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-02 Thread Stephen Warren
On 07/02/2013 10:28 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > Hey guys, > > I'm wondering about something and looking for input. As has come > up a few times now, we have the ability for a single binary to run > on a few systems (there's both i.MX examples and AM335x examples), > but what we don't have is agreement

[U-Boot] [RFC] Supporting multiple variants of an SoC

2013-07-02 Thread Tom Rini
Hey guys, I'm wondering about something and looking for input. As has come up a few times now, we have the ability for a single binary to run on a few systems (there's both i.MX examples and AM335x examples), but what we don't have is agreement on the best way to handle things that must (today) b