On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 04:36:06PM +0200, Lars Poeschel wrote: > On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 10:34:34AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 05:09:11PM +0200, poesc...@lemonage.de wrote: > > > > > From: Lars Poeschel <poesc...@lemonage.de> > > > > > > This add a Kconfig entry that allows to set the board revision in > > > menuconfig. So the deprecated CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS is no longer > > > needed for this boad. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lars Poeschel <poesc...@lemonage.de> > > > > I like the concept but CONFIG_REVx is way too generic. Can we maybe > > re-work things as CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051_REV1 / CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051_REV3 > > (and those select CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051) ? Masahiro? Thanks! > > Agree: CONFIG_REVx is too generic. I will send a version 2 of the patch, > but I don't understand why you want CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051_REV1 / > CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051_REV3 to select CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051. The > CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051_REVx's are inside an > > if TARGET_PCM051 > ... > endif > > That means, that CONFIG_TARGET_PCM051 must already be selected to make > the *_REVx's visible and selectable.
Right. I mean since we must select one of these boards at build-time,
why not just ask about them up-front in arch/arm/Kconfig as rev1/rev3,
and then have the main symbol be a hidden one, ie roughly:
config TARGET_PCM051
bool
config TARGET_PCM051_REV1
bool "Enable pcm051 rev1"
select TARGET_PCM051
help
...
config TARGET_PCM051_REV3
bool "Enable pcm051 rev3"
select TARGET_PCM051
help
...
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
