On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 08:44:52PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > I meanwhile realized that the entire makefile system doesn't really cope > > with the fact. So what I'm left with is something along the lines of > > Please explain what's the problem...
the problem is tha the main makefile always wants to build cpu/arm920t/start.o, and I don't see an easy way how it could be modified to build cpu/arm920t/s3c24x0/start.o instead. At least until now I don't see an infrastructure for this. > > the attached patch, where the cpu/arm920t/start.S #includes a > > cpu/arm920t/s3c24x0/start.S file. > > > > It's not really nice, but otherwise I assure you anyone touching the > > arm920t start.S file again will find itself in #ifdef/endif hell, once > > all my s3c24xx related patches would be merged... > > I really dislike the code duplication. same here. but I'd rather duplicate some 50-100 lines than have 300 lines of completely unreadable #ifdef hell. > > + * armboot - Startup Code for S3C24xx CPU-cores > > You're posting this on the wrong mailing list, then. Did you mean > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? ;-) please look into your own u-boot source, the entire arm start.S file looks like this, and I just copy+pasted that 'standard' > > --- u-boot.orig/include/configs/VCMA9.h > > +++ u-boot/include/configs/VCMA9.h > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ > > */ > > #define CONFIG_ARM920T 1 /* This is an ARM920T Core > > */ > > #define CONFIG_S3C2410 1 /* in a SAMSUNG S3C2410 SoC > > */ > > +#define CONFIG_S3C24xx 1 /* in a SAMSUNG S3C24xx family > > */ > > Is this really needed? Should not CONFIG_S3C2410 automatically > include setting CONFIG_S3C24xx ? this would have been my preferred choice. But only config.h is included by all the various header files. and config.h itself only includes board/foobar/config.h, i.e. there is no generic header file which gets preprocessed after the board-level config is included and which is still included from config.h. Should I invent one? I'm usually careful with doing things differently than it is already established in the u-boot project. And I've seen PPC examples just doing it like I did it now (defining the family directly in the board-level config). I agree, it's ugly and error prone... -- - Harald Welte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
_______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
