On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 11:26 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > 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.
OK. Ian. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot