> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Cooper [mailto:ja...@lakedaemon.net] > Sent: 14 February 2013 13:44 > To: Daniel Stodden > Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; Luka Perkov; Sebastian Hesselbarth; Rabeeh > Khoury; u-boot@lists.denx.de; a...@theia.denx.de; Fleming > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 00/10] Add Marvell Dove and SolidRun > CuBox > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:35:47PM -0800, Daniel Stodden wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 13:38 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 02:46:57PM -0800, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Luka Perkov [mailto:l...@openwrt.org] > > > > > Sent: 11 February 2013 02:08 > > > > > To: Sebastian Hesselbarth > > > > > Cc: Prafulla Wadaskar; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Rabeeh Khoury; > Albert > > > > > Aribaud; Andy Fleming; Joe Hershberger; Daniel Stodden > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Add Marvell Dove and SolidRun > CuBox > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:43:00AM +0100, Sebastian > Hesselbarth wrote: > > > > > > u-boot has kwboot for kirkwood since ages, but the general > > > > > functionality > > > > > > to boot through UART boot mode also applies to above SoCs. I > took > > > > > > kwbimage to reflect that kwboot should be used for booting > this > > > > > image. > > > > > > IMHO introducing new abbreviated image names like dvbimage > will just > > > > > > distract people from using the correct tool to boot it. > kwboot will > > > > > not > > > > > > be renamed, will it? > > > > > > > > > > I don't mind if we rename kwboot to lets say mvebu-boot. That > name > > > > > would > > > > > fit for kirkwood, dove and armada SoCs in the future... > > > > > > > > That's good idea. > > > > I vote for renaming kwboot as "mvboot", that will inline with > predefined file naming strategy. > > > > > > Is kwboot practically extensible to mmp and pxa? > > > > If those have a similar mechanism, and it happens to be based on > Xmodem, > > then there's probably sharable ground. > > > > The boot message protocol on Marvell chips is a fairly ad-hoc > construct. > > right, I was more concerned with the naming convention. At least in > the > kernel, mvebu includes all Marvell SoCs _except_ mmp and pxa. I would > presume mv would be an all-inclusive name. > > I didn't really have a strong opinion on it, so I'm fine either way. > In > hindsight, I'd prefer not to type 'mvebu-boot'...
If the code or tool is being shared between more that one Marvell SoCs, it makes sense to use mv_** naming convention. This is to inline with the Marvell's naming strategy implemented so far in u-boot code. Whereas, we can always have <soc>_<functionality> type of naming conventions for specific implementation. At present, kwboot is specific to Kirkwood, the support is being extended for Dove and latter few more.. so it makes sense to rename it as mvboot. I need to check whether kwboot is practically extensible to mmp and pxa, but it makes sense to rename it as mvboot since it supports more than Kirkwood. Regards.. Prafulla . . . _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
