Hello Wolfgang
Before this "unification" patch I send another path that did treat
the avnet board as a new board (a lot of code replication). This is
what I call the old way.
Let me be more clear. What do we want:
MODE A
=========
ml507_config: unconfig
BOARD_DIR=$(obj)board/xilinx/ml507 \
TEXT_BASE=0x3000000 \
LINK_SCRIPT=$(obj)board/xilinx/ppc440-generic/u-boot-ram.lds \
CONFIG_SCRIPT="ml507 ppc ppc4xx ml507 xilinx" \
$(MAKE) xilinx_ppc440
ml507_flash_config: unconfig
BOARD_DIR=$(obj)board/xilinx/ml507 \
TEXT_BASE=0xFE360000 \
LINK_SCRIPT=$(obj)board/xilinx/ppc440-generic/u-boot-rom.lds \
CONFIG_SCRIPT="ml507 ppc ppc4xx ml507 xilinx" \
$(MAKE) xilinx_ppc440
v5fx30teval:
LIKE BEFORE
v5fx30teval_flash:
LIKE BEFORE
xilinx_ppc440: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include $(BOARD_DIR)
@cp $(LINK_SCRIPT) $(BOARD_DIR)/u-boot.lds
@echo "TEXT_BASE = $(TEXT_BASE)" > $(BOARD_DIR)/config.mk
@$(MKCONFIG) $(CONFIG_SCRIPT)
MODE B
==========
ml507: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include $(obj)board/xilinx/ml507
@cp $(obj)board/xilinx/ppc440-generic/u-boot-rom.lds
$(obj)board/xilinx/ml507/u-boot.lds
@echo "TEXT_BASE = 0x30000000" > $(obj)board/xilinx/ml507/config.mk
@$(MKCONFIG) ml507 ppc ppc4xx ml507 xilinx
ml507_flash: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include $(obj)board/xilinx/ml507
@cp $(obj)board/xilinx/ppc440-generic/u-boot-rom.lds
$(obj)board/xilinx/ml507/u-boot.lds
@echo "TEXT_BASE = 0x30000000" > $(obj)board/xilinx/ml507/config.mk
@$(MKCONFIG) ml507 ppc ppc4xx ml507 xilinx
v5fx30teval:
LIKE BEFORE
v5fx30teval_flash:
LIKE BEFORE
MODE C
========
Please write your suggestion here.
My opinion:
Mode A is more "magical": it calls the make program again, but it
is easier to maintain and has less code duplication: There are 6
boards that have to be configured the same way. Nevertheless is
your/Stefan choose.
Regards
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 17:01, Wolfgang Denk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear "Ricardo Ribalda Delgado",
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>
>> I have no problem in setting the Makefile in the classic way, I just
>> wanted to create a new way with the less code replication possible.
>>
>> Shall I continue with this idea or I move back to the old way?
>
> I'm not sure if I really understand what the "old" and the "new" way
> is, but we must limit the growth of the Makefile; it is not a place
> to configura boards. Yes, this has been done in the past (when U-Boot
> supported only a fraction of the boards we have today), and maybe we
> even clean up the old boards one day, but at least don't let us add
> more of this stuff.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my
> kind of fooling" - R. Frost
>
--
Ricardo Ribalda
http://www.eps.uam.es/~rribalda/
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
