On Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:02:17 AM Scott Wood wrote: > On 10/05/2011 04:44 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, September 21, 2011 01:31:28 AM Scott Wood wrote: > >>> Is it really such a burden to put something like > >>> > >>> #define CONFIG_SPL_ARCH_CPU > >>> > >>> in your board config header? > >> > >> Yes it's a burden. It's a burden to add this to all boards but one. It > >> makes no sense. > > > > Looking at a pile of partially ported TI boards, I wonder if we don't > > need a few common SPL include files, setting this-and-that and then > > letting boards opt-out of these defaults (or just going it alone?) as > > needed. > > A header with common opt-ins would be good -- possibly have a small > number of common "profiles" for typical types of SPL, and/or high-level > feature #ifdefs that #define the components required to enable them. > > Also, an opt-out might be more palatable if it is local to this > particular CPU makefile, and indicates what specifically is being opted > out of -- what constitutes a "CPU support library" is vague from a > target-independent view. > > I guess what you're really trying to replace is the initial entry code, > with something provided under board/? Only the cpu makefile knows which > files are initial entry versus other CPU-specific things. > > -Scott
Very well then, who's preparing the profiles? Also, the CPU-library will then be composed of no files, will the makefiles handle empty COBJS ? Cheers _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot