On 04/27/11 13:19, Michael Schwingen wrote: > Am 04/26/2011 11:38 PM, schrieb Reinhard Meyer: >>>> So IMO, if we have mach-types in U-Boot for supporting Linux, then we >>>> should keep using a (reasonably) up-to-date Linux machine ID list just >>>> like we do now -- mach-types that disappear from the list mean Linux >>>> support has become useless for that machine in U-Boot. And if we have >>>> our own mach-type policy, different from "has linux support", then we >>>> need to specify what this policy is and how it is implemented. >>> I think we should be gentle to users of existing code and avoid >>> breaking it. From now on, we could establish a policy that a mach-id >>> can only be referenced when and as long mainline Linux support for >>> this board exists. >>> >>> I'm open for suggestions. >> >> Hi Wolfgang, Albert, >> >> why don't we just create the #define MACH_xxx lines directly from the >> "http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines/download.php". We don't >> need all the *_is_* macros in u-boot anyway. Then we would have just a >> few 1000 >> lines of #define MACH_* >> > I had already proposed that - after all, that is the way Linux does it > as well: the mach-types.h file is auto-generated from that list (or now > from a cut-down version of that list), so directly using the original > list to generate the .h file in u-boot would completely cut out the > middle man. > > This would have multiple advantages IMHO: > > - the downloaded file is terse: only one line per machine, compared > with the current mach-types.h where one added machine generates lots of > lines (most of which we do not need at all!). Reviewing a patch that > pulls in a new upstream version would be easier with the original file > instead of the .h file. > > - Newly added machines turn up much earlier. When bringing up a new > board, you will usually work on u-boot first. Having to wait until the > machine ID trickles down into the Linux kernel, and *then* gets pulled > into u-boot at some later time, makes for a substantial delay until > board patches can be submitted to u-boot. > > - It would actually save space: > 138803 Apr 27 12:12 mach-types (freshly downloaded, complete > unfiltered list) > 1177444 Apr 5 20:55 ./arch/arm/include/asm/mach-types.h (from u-boot > master, before the patch that removes boards) > > - There would be no problem with removing boards that are supported in > u-boot, but not in Linux mainline - we would have the IDs for all known > boards, while still saving space. > > I do think the maintenance effort when using the original mach-types > file would be lower than with the current system. However, when I > proposed this before,
+1 to all said above, though some minor patching should be done: u-boot $ grep -rn machine_is_ --exclude=mach-types.h * arch/arm/cpu/arm920t/at91rm9200/ether.c:204: if (machine_is_csb337()) { board/ti/omap1610inn/omap1610innovator.c:66: if (machine_is_omap_h2()) board/ti/omap1610inn/omap1610innovator.c:68: else if (machine_is_omap_innovator()) -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot