On 08/14/2012 04:31 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> These are not supported as individual build targets, but instead >> are supported by another target. >> >> The dead p4040 defines in particular had bitrotted significantly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc85xx/Makefile | 3 -- >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/config_mpc85xx.h | 68 >> ++--------------------------- >> arch/powerpc/include/asm/immap_85xx.h | 2 +- >> drivers/net/fm/Makefile | 1 - >> include/configs/P2041RDB.h | 2 +- >> include/configs/P4080DS.h | 1 + >> include/configs/P5020DS.h | 2 +- >> 7 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-) > > I had put these in for customer specific boards...
Why wouldn't they use the p2041/p4080/p5020 symbol? The point is we support both at runtime. > I understand we might have bit rot, but I guess I'd rather we added: > > P2040RDB, P4040DS, and P5010DS to boards.cfg to test these SoC builds than > remove the code. I disagree. That adds extra builds to test and maintain for no real gain. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
