Dear Wolfgang,
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.
Now I'm just trying to learn something regarding [1]:
Which changes would you accept in the category 'backward compatibility'?
And which changes 'introduce forward incompatibilities', and what are
these incompatibilities?
Many thanks and best regards
Dirk
[1]
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119207.html
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-March/119208.html
(assuming this will be changed to
--- a/include/configs/mx6qsabrelite.h
+++ b/include/configs/mx6qsabrelite.h
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
#define CONFIG_SYS_MX6_CLK32 32768
#define CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO
#define CONFIG_DISPLAY_BOARDINFO
+#define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE 3769
#include <asm/arch/imx-regs.h>
)
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
