Hi Simon,
On 04/01/2019 10:00 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Kever, > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 19:03, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> >> On 03/31/2019 05:18 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Kever, >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 21:01, Kever Yang <kever.y...@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>> Rockchip use 'arch-rockchip' instead of arch-$(SOC) as common >>>> header file path, so that we can get the correct path directly. >>> Can you give a few more details on the reason for this change? I >>> cannot see the benefit? >> 1. 'rockchip' is not SOC name but vendor name, we'd better use correct name; >> 2. the build system will include $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi automatically >> without modify >> $(SOC).dtsi or $(board).dtsi, if the $(SOC) default to 'rockchip', >> we can't use >> this feature. > OK I see. > > So far Rockchip has been designed so that a single U-Boot (proper) can > support multiple SoCs, I don't understand, how can a single U-Boot(proper) support multiple Rockchip SoCs, it sounds awesome which is kernel like. But I thought we need different build with different source for different SoCs now. For $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi, another way is using $(BOARD)-u-boot.dtsi, but I think in most case, we can have one $(SOC)-u-boot.dtsi instead of many $(BOARD)-u-boot.dtsi for one SoC, so we need this feature. Thinks, - Kever > although in practice we don't use that ability. > So I don't think it is a big problem to drop it. > > Regards, > Simon > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
