On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07:37AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 05/18/2012 04:24 PM, Allen Martin wrote: > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:06:40PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 05/10/2012 01:02 AM, Allen Martin wrote: > ... > >> Perhaps we can just create a new tegra_spl board for the SPL rather than > >> having an SPL variant for each board. Still, I don't know how we'd > >> represent the UART differences if we did that though. > > > > I tossed out that idea as part of the discussion about using a > > separate toolchain for the SPL, but Wolfgang shot it down: > > > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-April/122248.html > > Is that the right link? That message seems to be talking about a > CROSS_COMPILE_SPL variable rather than having a separate boards.cfg > entry for a Tegra SPL.
This was the piece I was referring to, which was a conversation about exactly this topic (armv4 SPL and armv7 u-boot): > > The architecture seems harder to fix. It seems like I really have to > > have two entries in boards.cfg, which means two passes of config/make. > > This should be not needed; I also do not think this would be an > acceptable approach. -Allen -- nvpublic _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
