From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1STt7P-0001s0-Al for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 14 May 2012 11:07:12 +0000 Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so4014522lbb.36 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 04:07:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FB0E757.5050508@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:07:03 +0600 From: Alexey Galakhov MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20120513090917.GX27341@pengutronix.de> <201205141104.22094.jbe@pengutronix.de> <4FB0D058.3070206@gmail.com> <201205141157.29518.jbe@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: <201205141157.29518.jbe@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] Minimal S5PV210 + Tiny210 support (2nd stage only) To: Juergen Beisert Cc: barebox Hi, On 14.05.2012 15:57, Juergen Beisert wrote: > Hi Alexey, > > please keep the mailing list at least on CC. Oops. Sorry. Wrong button :) >> Using iROM to boot is generally a bad idea, but there's no alternative >> right now. > > For you there might be no alternative right now. But for Barebox its all right > if only a basic support for this new CPU is available. Even if it's not bootable? Ok, there's better plan. Instead of adding iROM in a separate file, I'll just call its magic address in board's lowlevel init. So this will be for tiny210 only. > Skip the iROM entirely in your patch series if you want to remove it later on. > What sense would it make to include it and then remove it again? It depends on what one means "remove again". This may happen after a year or so. While I think I can implement NAND quite fast, I'm not so optimistic about MMC. >> However, there's one bad thing: it's better to add at least one board to >> Kconfig with the new arch. > > ? If there are no BOARDINFO and board-y defined, barebox cannot be built. So one cannot compile barebox with CONFIG_ARCH_something if there are no boards utilizing it, right? How to test the compilation then? Is it Ok? Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox