On 03/03/2012 10:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Dirk, > > In message <4f51bba9.4090...@googlemail.com> you wrote: >> >> Having Freescale working on these quite old and unclean U-Boot and >> Kernel versions is a pain. Kernel is an other topic, but with U-Boot, >> thanks to the very good work of everybody, we are in a good position >> to get rid of the old Freescale U-Boot, now. And get everybody to work >> with mainline and create patches against it. > > ACK. > >> So if it helps to apply some backward compatibility to make it easier >> for everybody, esp. Freescale, to switch to mainline U-Boot, I think >> we should try it. > > Agreed. If these patches were only for backward compatibility I would > not complain much. But they are known to introduce forward incompati- > bilities with all this MACH_ID stuff, and this is what I would like to > avoid. > > I think we should make a clear statement that new boards that get > added should only support DT based configurations. If really needed, > legacy MACH_ID support may be kept out of tree.
I think a point here is that boards must not use any macro defined in mach-types.h, such as machine_is_*. U-Boot does not need it, and their usage makes the code strictly dependent from the kernel legacy mach-ids. If a board defines only CONFIG_MACH_TYPE in its own configuration file, it should not break if we decide in future to drop it completely. Best regards, Stefano Babic _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
