Hi, On 10/22/2014 11:19 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 10:35 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 10/22/2014 10:14 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 16:58 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> We should be doing things right, in mainline. To bring up a different >>>> example, on TI OMAP4 parts at least for a long time in order to use >>>> mainline U-Boot on older kernels you had to manually add >>>> CONFIG_SOMETHING_OR_ANOTHER to enable additional clocks/mux that the old >>>> kernels had incorrectly relied on U-Boot to set. If we must do strange >>>> things to support old and incorrect but in the wild kernels we need to >>>> (a) make it opt-in (easier now with Kconfig!) and (b) schedule a removal >>>> of the hack all the same. >>> >>> A Kconfig option does sound like a reasonable compromise. >> >> Ok, I will look into this, my plan for now is to call it OLD_KERNEL_COMPAT, >> so that if we come across more cases like this we've one config option for >> them, rather then a ton of small isolated config options. > > Is it particular to "old" kernels as such, or is it more to do with > Allwinner SDK (and derived) kernels? Is it worth trying to keep > workarounds for such kernels separated from workarounds for old mainline > kernels?
AFAIK the first mainline kernels with sunxi support are recent enough that they don't need any workarounds. TBH I don't think differentiating between the 2 brings us anything. Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot