> > My understanding was that we wanted to go the other way and have all > > boards have failover. > Kconfig doesn't support >1 image per build right now. This merely moves > abuild to the same state, to simplify development.
If Koenig doesn't support fallback and normal yet, maybe that should come first. > We might want to have "something like failover". We might want to have > "something like fallback and normal". But we will have to reconsider > what exactly we want. I like the cleanliness of having the early setup and image selection done separately. It made the s2895 code much easier for me to follow. > In my opinion such changes are easier if the tree is as uniform as > possible. Agreed. > Right now, there's failover style (k8 and fam10) and > fallback/normal style (everything else). Moving from the latter to the > former is harder than the other way around. In general removing features is easier than adding them. Will this make it easier to add it later? Thanks, Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
