Hello Wolfgang, On 01/15/2014 12:04 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Holger, > > In message <52d64089.6070...@keymile.com> you wrote: >> >>> This commit removes support for the Freescale MPC82xx Power >>> Architecture processors, i. e. MPC8240, MPC8245, MPC8247, MPC8248, >>> MPC8250, MPC8255, MPC8260, MPC8265, MPC8266, MPC8272, MPC8280, ... >>> >>> They have been out of production for years, and no active users left >>> here. As some boards start causing problems, let's drop the obsolete >>> and now dead code. >> >> thats not valid for us. Our mgcoge3ne target which comes with a MPC8247 is >> still >> in production and maintained. If you look at the git log of > > Argh... Can you foresee how much longer this hardware is likely to be > maintained? >
uhm. There is currently no plan to stop the production of this board. So for the next two years at least I would expect that they were still produced. And as a sidenode I still have the request on my desk to integrate the POST tests for this board, which we already have for our PPC83xx and kirkwood boards. >> So isn't it possible to remove only the broken boards and keep the generic >> parts? > > Yes, this would be possible, too. But then, it appears you are the > only remaining active user of MPC82xx. OK, MPC8247 is actually still > marked as "active" at Freescale, soory I missed that - the MPC824x > types I checked were in "No Longer Manufactured" state. > > The thing is that there are tons of interdependencies an #defines that > need to be checked so we don't leave too many unused #defines and such > around. > yes I understand the desire to remove as much as unneeded code as possible. > I see several options now: > > 1) We apply the patch as is, and if you really have to modify your > code you would do this out-of-tree based on the last frozen > version. > yes we could do that and keep a seperate branch for this board, but I don't like this. I guess I don't need to explain why I would like to avoid an additional branch on our site. > 2) I rework the patch to remove only the MPC826x / MPC828x code. > honestly this would be my favorite approach. So if keeping 82xx support would't generate to much overload for u-boot I would appreciate to keep it. But if it interferes with future u-boot development we could also move it to a keymile specific branch. And just out of curiosity. Why do you keep still 8xx board support? Is this more in use then 82xx? This is suprising to me. Regards Holger _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
