> -----Original Message----- > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 12:06 PM > To: Prafulla Wadaskar > Cc: Rogan Dawes; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare; > Prabhanjan Sarnaik > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] kirkwood: added common config > file mv-config.h > > Le 01/10/2010 08:10, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit : > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] > >> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:05 PM > >> To: Prafulla Wadaskar > >> Cc: Rogan Dawes; u-boot@lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare; > >> Prabhanjan Sarnaik > >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] kirkwood: added common config > >> file mv-config.h > >> > >> Le 30/09/2010 16:33, Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit : > >> > >>>>> +/* > >>>>> + * IDe Support on SATA port0 > >>>>> + */ > >>>> > >>>> IDe? > >>> > >>> I think Ide can be removed, right? > > > > I mean here s/Ide//g > > > >> > >> Do none of the boards have disks? At least openrd-base should > >> have IDE > > > > Guruplug, openrd_base and rd6281a have disk support > > > >> (and openrd-client as well if the patch to introduced it is > >> finally merged). > >> > >> So IDE should stay IMO, but the IDE stuff should be split into > >> board-specifics (basically the defines for the IDE0 and, if > >> it exists, > >> IDE1 base addresses) and SoC-specifics (basically everything > >> else, i.e. > >> all that is required for cmd_ide.c to compile). > > > > At this moment I only see the case with edminiv2 board > where ATA bus0 is configured for sata port1. > > To extend this support for this board, we can undef and > redef the respective macros. > > > > Whereas on all other boards it is one-to-one mapping. > > > > To me setting default configuration make more sense, that > avoids code duplication in several files. > > > > Regards.. > > Prafulla . . > > Even if almost all boards have straight rather than cross mappings of > IDE0/IDE1 to SATA0/SATA1, not all of them have two busses > (guruplug has > only one, and likewise another kirkwood based board I'm > working on) so > half the boards would have to modify the settings anyway. > > Besides, having each board explicitely telling what busses is > has rather > than making it half implicit in the SoC common config file has two > advantages: > > - someone looking at the board config file will immediately > know without > if it supports IDE *and* how many busses it actually provides > *and* how > they are mapped; > > - boards will always declare "what is there" rather than declaring > either "what is there" or possibly "what isn't there even though the > common config said there would be". > > After all, this is only one or two lines in the board config, > and they
Well one can always undef if using only one sataport, as we undef commands configured in config_cmd_default.h On the other hand one can say I will define the needed config for used sata port. This makes more sense I do agree, it is positively informative, I will keep sata port config out of the common definition. Regards.. Prafulla . . _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot