On 3/3/2012 6:30 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Dirk Behme,
In message<[email protected]> you wrote:
Agreed. If these patches were only for backward compatibility I would
not complain much. But they are known to introduce forward incompati-
bilities with all this MACH_ID stuff, and this is what I would like to
avoid.
Now I'm just trying to learn something regarding [1]:
Which changes would you accept in the category 'backward compatibility'?
There are 3 commits in this series:
[PATCH 1/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add CONFIG_REVISION_TAG
[PATCH 2/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add MACH_TYPE_MX6Q_SABRELITE
[PATCH 3/3] i.MX6: mx6qsabrelite: add ext2 support
I dislike #1 because it uses the completely undocumented
CONFIG_REVISION_TAG, and I agree with Marek's and Stefano's comments.
The problems I mentioned are with # 2, which now would depend on
MACH_TYPE_MX6Q_SABRELITE, which may or may not exist.
Also, I think we should not need this any more at all, as we now have
DT support in Linux on ARM, too.
I see no issues with # 3.
And which changes 'introduce forward incompatibilities', and what are
these incompatibilities?
See the recent problems that occurred when RMK decided to "clean up"
the machids file.
Would you rather that I take RMK's cleaned up file, and undelete the
machines that u-boot
uses? That would be more simple than adding to the board's config file.
I can delete all of the mach_is_xxx macros in mach-types while I'm at it.
Thanks
Troy
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
