Hello Albert,
> > > > > > > > There are some entries which produce the same binaries: > > > > - ep8248E is equivalent to ep8248 > > > > - MPC8360ERDK_66 is equivalent to MPC8360ERDK > > > > - Adder87x/AdderUSB is equivalent to Adder > > > > - EVB64260_750CX is equivalent to EVB64260 > > > > > > > > I also notice > > > > - Lite5200 is equivalent to icecube_5200 > > > > - Lite5200_LOWBOOT is equivalent to icecube_5200_LOWBOOT > > > > - Lite5200_LOWBOOT08 is equivalent to icecube_5200_LOWBOOT08 > > > > But I am keeping them. > > > > (Wolfgang suggested to do so because Lite5200* are referenced > > > > in misc documents.) > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> > > > > > > I wonder (i.e., this is an open question) whether we should delete > > > entries for different hardware just because they happen produce > > > identical binaries. > > > > In my option, we should not create multiple entries > > pointing to the same config header. > > > > We are already using single entry for different boards. > > (In such a case, a wildcard character "x" is often used > > but it is not must.) > > For example, the entry "zynq_zc70x" is used for > > both "Zynq ZC702" and "Zynq ZC706" board. > > They are definitely different boards but the difference is quite > > small. So we can use the same configuration for the two. > > > > > > In the case of this patch, > > (I am not familiar with "ep8248" board, but I guess) > > ep8248 and ep8248E are different, but probably similar board. > > > > So we can use the common entry "ep8248" for them. > > And "ep8248" means "ep8248 boards family", > > not "exactly ep8248 board". > > I agreed then boards.cfg ntries which point to the same config header > *and* have the same config options in boards.cfg could be merged. > > However, as you point out, and I agree, that some boards are > *probably* similar enough to be merged, this "probably" shows that we > do not know for sure the intent of the board maintainer. > > Besides, we do not know which build procedure or script is out there > which expects one board name or the other; merging entries would > disrupt those procedures, so I want to be sure we are doing the right > thing there. > > Therefore, I would defer the decision of merging similar entries to the > board maintainer(s), who is/are supposed to know best about this; at > least, I would suggest to CC: them so that they can either Ack or Nak > as they see fit. I had already done this. Please read this thread: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/307941/ All boards I am touching in this patch are surely unmaintained. (So we cannot ask the reason why they added multiple entries.) I tried to contact to their maintainers but all mails have been bouncing. So I dropped Cc: tag when I posted v4. Otherwise, I would get delivery failure notification mails from STMP again and again. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
