On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:26:36PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:52:21AM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 07:45:14PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > But why do we even need to set MACH_TYPE these days?
> > 
> > That's only needed for non-device tree kernel boot. These boards run mostly
> > vendor provided kernels based on TI 2.6.32 or 2.6.37 kernel tree with
> > daughter boards specific patches on top of it. Enric is concerned not
> > to break that support, so I'm trying to keep it.
> OK, if you're still supporting stuff that old then yes, it makes sense.
> And we can't get this right at run time?

I asked several times, if there's a way to differentiate those boards
(0020, 0030 and 0032) at runtime, but never get an answer. Of course
I'd like to see one U-Boot binary to rule them all, but I'm out of clue
there. Few people added to Cc...

Another approach might be to configure U-Boot using FDT and translate
that information into MACH_TYPE and kernel command line to support
non-device tree enabled kernels.

U-Boot mailing list

Reply via email to