Thanks Wolfgang,
On 03/11/2013 04:15 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Eric,
In message <513d18f3.2010...@boundarydevices.com> you wrote:
I understand the point, but think the pain is manageable and
mostly ours.
When I say it doesn't scale, I'm not only thinking about yourown
efforts, and your customers.
I also think about things like the increase of build and test time for
_everybody_ who performs tests on U-Boot - instead of one board, we
now have to build - how many? 6? - configurations. If we allow this
now, others will copy this approach (and we cannot really reject it
then). I really would like to avoid setting such a precedent here.
Would it help if we restrict the number of boards directly in
boards.cfg?
We can easily have local patches for the non-standard memory
configurations in our repository, and this will at least allow
build tests to include the processor variants.
<snip>
This step has broken things up into parts so that we
**can** express multiple memory configurations within
a single board directory, and I hope it moves the ball
forward a step or two.
It does. But source base is one thing. Havnig to deal with a large
number of configurations to build and test is another one, and here
you put additional burdon on a large number of prople.
Our hope in getting this main-lined was that other upcoming
Solo and Dual-Lite platforms could share some of the bits.
Understood and appreciated. But I also see this ias a strong reason
to come up with a clean design, and not create bad examples which
others without doubt will interpret as persuasive precedent.
Our hope is that the things we're adding are useful, and not
a burden.
We'll be happy to pursue the SPL route, but this won't be
something that we can devote cycles to in the next few weeks.
Regards,
Eric
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
