On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Michal Simek <mon...@monstr.eu> wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 03:46 PM, Chin Liang See wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 11:17 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >> On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Detlev Zundel wrote: > >>> Hi Michal, > >>> > >>>> On 11/11/2013 09:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:26:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Altera Cyclone 5 board is very different board (big, rectangular, > >>>>>> expensive) than EBV Socrates (small, circular, cheap) board. > Different > >>>>>> parts are used there, too, but same configuration of u-boot works on > >>>>>> both. Nevertheless, printing wrong name confuses users. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Therefore this splits the configuration so that u-boot knows they > are > >>>>>> different. So far it is only used for correcting the puts, but there > >>>>>> may be other uses in future. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de> > >>>>> > >>>>> Is there any way at run time to tell which board we are on? > >>>> > >>>> Why do you care about board name in general? > >>> > >>> We care for board names for a very long time in U-Boot and I'd like to > >>> keep this. I actually expect a sensible board name on any platform > that > >>> I touch. The board name is an important extra information additional > to > >>> the SoC name. So the question is the other way round - since when do > we > >>> _not_ care about board names? > >> > >> There could be i2c memory on board where you can find out this > information but that's > >> problematic if it is empty or you want to use this i2c for something > else. > >> For all microblaze boards I use XILINX_BOARD_NAME which reflects hw > design > >> (if user is smart enough board name is the part of hw design name). > >> For zynq/socfpga sensible solution is probably to load this name for > DTS. > >> > > > > Currently, the SOCFPGA SPL is customized through a set of handoff files > > which located at board folders. These handoff files are generated by > > tools based on board and user design in FPGA. With that, not much > > decision being made during run time based on the board. With this > > handoff and tools approach, it will shield off the complexity of > > hardware configuration and errors (if user change it manually without > > tools help). Thanks > > Which nice copy of our approach. :-) > Ugh...that came from you guys? I can't stand that approach. Coming from the i.MX world, this makes the end user so reliant on proprietary tools. Dinh > But anyway I believe that you are also generating one macro which define > name of this configuration based on hw design/board you are using. > And then you can use this macro for showing board/design name in u-boot. > > Thanks, > Michal > > -- > Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 > w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 > Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ > Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture > Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform > > > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > >
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot