On 09/12/2011 04:14 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: >>>> >>>> No, but then the respective maintainers will get a warning and will be >>>> forced to >>>> fix their boards in both linux and uboot. >>> >>> Maybe the simplest way to catch these boards (if any) is to run MAKEALL >>> on arm targets with your mach-types file. If no board is broken, we have >>> not to worry about. >>> >> >> sorry, I didn't follow the whole discussion, but this patch will remove the >> mach type for our km_kirkwood board. >> >> -#define MACH_TYPE_KM_KIRKWOOD 2255 >> >> This board is supported in u-boot but not mainlined in linux. So how should >> we >> handle this? > > Well, I think we cannot check for each update of this file which board > are dropped - this requires too much effort. The way we currently use > (Linux is the master of this file, and we update it directly from the > kernel) is IMHO the right way to get it in sync. >
Yes I agree. And I think our KM_KIRKWOOD may be a special case, because in the past we were present in mainline mach-types, but during a cleanup we were dropped, because we missed to get the associated board mainlined. > Maybe the best way, if you want to have your board maintained in u-boot > but not in kernel (however, why ?) is to define your MACH in the board > configuration file. > ok I will do this. When is this patch supposed to go in? regards Holger _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
