Hi Ricardo & Michal, it's not easy to find the time to catch up with what you are discussing here. :)
On Tuesday 26 August 2008, Ricardo Ribalda Delgado wrote: > > no you needn't - just you bsp - bsp take care about. > > We can be thousands of hours discussing the same, your opinion is that > we need a bsp and mine is that it is not... My proposal is start a new > thread for this. Yes, please start a different thread for this. I don't really know anymore what the specific question is. Its easier to follow multiple smaller email threads... > > Yes I agree with that we should keep one representative board with use > > generic ppc platform but just one not more. I vote for xilinx ml507. It > > is enought. > > Avnet board is sold better (it is much cheaper) and ml507 is more > "official"... Lets keep both. Stefan? I'm in favor to keeping both too. I still think all boards should have a chance to be included into the official repository. And its also a commercial argument that a board is represented here. So let's include both. <snip> > >> We have a generic board and specific boards that can overwrite the > >> generic functions and add more functionality like custom link script, > >> custom xparameters and custom boot, My opinion is that it is style > >> oriented. > > > > Yes. I understand reason why should user have create his own folder with > > his design. It is important but again this is really user specific > > things. If he want to see on every startup "Hello you are the best, my > > hero", he can change what he wants but this is not for mainline u-boot. > > What about external watchdogs, memory controller, Critial GPIOs?? Now > there are not so many public boards with this, but we must be prepared > to support them. And they need to be set up to start the system, they > are the reason for having a bootloader. Full ACK. <snip> > > I agree that your generic patch is better than adding next platform. > > If you can include changes which I report in previous email and resend, > > it will be great. > > Add only ml507 and small xparameters.h with values which are used not > > more. > > The v2 patch is prepared and ready to go, I am waiting for some more > comments to include them. If you want I can sent it directly to you, > this patch is big and I don't want to disturb the list. > > > Stefan: you are ppc440 custodian. I would like to see some comments from > > you. > > ACK Everybody what to some comments from me. :) OK, I think the main undecided question is: Should this patch introduce a 2nd board target and board directory for the AVNET 440 board. As stated a few times, I am in favor of introducing this additional target and directory. With Ricardo's current approach we have nearly zero code duplication. Yes, the top-level Makefile grows again, but I don't see this as a real problem. So Ricardo, you have my ACK for his approach and I will try to find some time to make a more in-depth code review with your next patch version. Thanks. Best regards, Stefan ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
