On 26.04.2011 23:32, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Albert ARIBAUD, > > In message<4db72d4a.5070...@aribaud.net> you wrote: >> >> Well, as you stated yourself recently, why would/should we maintain >> mach-types that are apparently not going to be used? Do machine types >> have other uses than for Linux? No code in U-Boot should worry about the >> mach-id if not for Linux. > > Well, in principle you are of course right. > > But I am well aware that there is a ton of Linux BSPs out there which > have never been pushed upstream into mainline by their respective > creators for some reason or another. Also I see a chance that other > uses of the mach-ids might exist - the Linux ARM folks have, fro a > very long time, always explained what a clever idea this is to > describe hardware features. > > I hesitate to cut off all these exitisting or even potential users > lightly, when there is a solution that works reasonably well for them > and, at the same time, brings only minimal maintenance burdon for us. > >> Also, if we still decide to maintain our own list of mach-types, we will >> need some rule to decide when to remove mach-types from this special >> list eventually. Otherwise, it'll become asymptotically identical to the >> full lits that is also availabe, and then, what would be the point of >> maintaining our own? > > That rule can be simple: we will only allow to add the now existing > (in U-Boot mainline code) mach-ids, so this list should not grow > further after the initial creation. OK, ther eis a slight chance that > any newly added boards (to U-Boot) will get removed from the Linux > master file later, but I consider this a small risk - especially as I > expect to see more and ore device-tree based ARM ports quickly, so the > whole mach-id thing becomes less and less of a pain. > >> So IMO, if we have mach-types in U-Boot for supporting Linux, then we >> should keep using a (reasonably) up-to-date Linux machine ID list just >> like we do now -- mach-types that disappear from the list mean Linux >> support has become useless for that machine in U-Boot. And if we have >> our own mach-type policy, different from "has linux support", then we >> need to specify what this policy is and how it is implemented. > > I think we should be gentle to users of existing code and avoid > breaking it. From now on, we could establish a policy that a mach-id > can only be referenced when and as long mainline Linux support for > this board exists. > > I'm open for suggestions.
Hi Wolfgang, Albert, why don't we just create the #define MACH_xxx lines directly from the "http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/download.php";. We don't need all the *_is_* macros in u-boot anyway. Then we would have just a few 1000 lines of #define MACH_* Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
