Hi Stephen, On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> wrote: > On 01/09/2012 01:04 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> wrote: >>> On 01/09/2012 12:55 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> wrote: >>>>> The Toshiba AC100 (Compal code-name Paz00, aka Dynabook AZ) is a netbook >>>>> derived from the NVIDIA Tegra Harmony reference board. It ships with >>>>> Android, but is often repurposed to run Linux. This patch adds just enough >>>>> support to get a U-Boot serial console, and the ability access built-in >>>>> eMMC and the external SD slot. >>> ... >>>>> diff --git a/board/compal/paz00/Makefile b/board/compal/paz00/Makefile >>> ... >>>>> +COBJS := $(BOARD).o >>>>> +COBJS += ../../nvidia/common/board.o >>>> >>>> I think you can drop this as the top-level Makefile should bring in >>>> the library from that directory. >>> >>> I did try that initially, and it doesn't work. I didn't investigate very >>> far at all, but I assume it's because the common library is for vendor >>> NVIDIA, but this board is for vendor compal, and so the common library >>> doesn't get pulled in? Does that make sense, or should I investigate >>> further? >> >> Sorry, of course you are using a different vendor. >> >> It seems a bit dodgy to include a board file from a different vendor. >> Sad as it is, perhaps the right thing to do is to copy the code from >> that file? > > I think that's what Thierry did with the Avionics Design boards. But to > me it seemed the lack of cleanliness of pulling in an existing file from > outside the vendor tree was less than that of cut/pasting the code. > > With my patch, any issues should still show up with "MAKEALL -s tegra2" > at build-/change-time, whereas if I cut/paste the code, the Compal > vendor might not pick up any bug fixes etc. to the shared code until > after someone had actually tested on the PAZ00 board, which will > probably happen a lot less frequently. > > Given that, do you think this change is reasonable? > >> We should perhaps look at moving some of it into arch, as we have done >> previously. > > Yes, that's probably the best long-term solution. I don't actually > recall exactly which parts of that common code the PAZ00 code relies on > right now; it might be an easy change.
It's not that hard (each of the two functions has <10 LOC), but I agree with your reasoning, and this is fine with me until we address it. Acked-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > -- > nvpublic Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
