Hi Ricardo and Stefan, >> 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 see simplier way just add >>>> #define BOARD_NAME "Avnet bla bla" or for xilinx too. And small change in >>>> puts. >>>> >>> If the user is using the generic design, he should see generic design >>> in the prompt. Anyway, this is just a personal opinion, no big deal >>> changing this >> If user using generic design he has set standalone bsp in edk - no names. If >> he >> wants to play with linux or u-boot just fill the name which he wants to see >> in >> prompt. Bsp add U-BOOT to begin of command line. (for example U-BOOT-ML507>). >> This is no problem. >> > > It depends if we continue with the bsp or not bsp discuss is only about name not about style how to add new board or design. >>>> XPAR_SPI_0_NUM_TRANSFER_BITS, XPAR_IIC_EEPROM_BASEADDR and >>>> XPAR_SPI_0_BASEADDR >>>> are not used anywhere. And maybe some others. (LL_TEMAC driver is not in >>>> U-BOOT >>>> -> I have full version with fifo and sgdma in my repo but >>>> LLTEMAC_0_BASEADDR is >>>> not used in U-BOOT yet) >>>> >>> I use it on my design, that lines can be replaced. Anyway I have a >>> working version of Xilinx SPI, I am waiting for some more tests to >>> release it. >> I understand. If you want I can check it on Microblaze too. But be aware that >> this driver should not be based on xilinx files. >> > > It is not based on Xilinx files (not the same error again :) ) > Thanks. I receive an spi board next week, I have only tested through > loopback. I don't want to release an untested code to the list. I sent > it to you (and any other one that wants it). ok. >>>> Please compare both configs files - you can see changes which are board >>>> specific. >>>> 1. point to proper xparameters.h >>>> 2. ENV_OFFSET -> this could be generic >>> It hardly depends on the .bit size and the flash size >> Size of .bit is not a problem because you can alloc 2MB that should be enough >> for every bitstream. For env size choose one sector. This is about layout of >> flash (MTD). User can choose and I believe will choose his own layout which >> is >> the best for him. > > I hope it was that easy. Virtex FX50T bitstream is almost 3.5 MB and > FX30T is 1.7... Flash size is very valuable and must be well used. you have more then 3,5MB of flash. IMHO size in xparam is better. >>> 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. if you will use non standard solution you need to directly in different way. If you use common solution I will call it generic -> one ifdef. GPIO -> you choose what gpio do -> distribution without design doesn't make sense to me. >> What is your simple board? Every board is simple if you know it. But you >> meant >> simple design. That a big difference. >> >> Yes. commercial matter is important. We can add thousand of design in >> microblaze >> or ppc405,ppc440 folders and Wolfgang could write that u-boot supports >> thousand >> boards. But the real state will be different. And the same from Xilinx and >> Avnet >> site but what will be better to support thousands board (or design) or just >> full >> ppc440 based on xilinx fpga. What is bigger? And who choose what boards are >> the >> most/sold. I don't have numbers. > > Support explicitly thousands of boars and implicitly any ppc440 xilinx board It is up to Stefan, >> The next things which can comes in after 2 years. You are board maintainer >> for >> ml507 and this board will be ancient but U-BOOT will contain this board and >> will >> we move several years till someone just remove it. The same situation comes >> with >> others board. > > The m507 has no specific code in it: this is the real good thing. > Their source code is in ppc440-generic, which is the only board that > should be explicitly maintained. There is no code replication. yes, just design specific things. >> I haven't invented BSP style in EDK. You have to choose linux one if you >> want to >> work with linux. I believe you are not lazy to choose different one. > > I am lazy to install another BSP that maybe wont support my design. :-) you are developer. You can develop. > >> For example fdt bsp which I started with it (currently is maintained by >> Xilinx) >> should be in EDK or maybe is. EDK is not standard and the things there are >> not >> fully up to date. I will talked with people from Xilinx if is possible to and >> which are their requirements for add u-boot bsp to EDK. >> > > If there is a u-boot bsp in EDK, I will be the first in using it, but > until them I stay with linux2_6 bsp :-) >> This is different theme and I don't want to disturb people in u-boot mailing >> list. This is only about name. It is up to Stefan which names are acceptable >> for >> him. >> >> > >> You are wrong. Xparameters.h is looooooong file where 98% of values are >> unneeded. In Loong file with lot of information you lose everything. Maybe >> you >> will be happy that you have looooong file and there is a lot of information >> but >> the purpose of this file is... >> Loong xparameters.h was unacceptable for linux-kernel in ppc branch and is in >> EDK due to compatibility. FDT solved this. > > But u-boot needs a .h Some days ago there was a discussion about this > on the list. I don't know. :-( Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
