Hi Jagan, sorry, I see patch is already V3, I have missed the previous ones. Anyway:
On 26/03/2018 14:16, Jagan Teki wrote: > ARCH_MX6 -> ARCH_IMX6 > MX6 -> SOC_IMX6 > MX6D -> SOC_IMX6D > MX6DL -> SOC_IMX6DL > MX6Q -> SOC_IMX6Q > MX6S -> SOC_IMX6S I do not understand which is the added value for this patchset, except that it could potentially break many boards. I can understand if there would be a name conflict with some other SOCs, but there is not. Why should we soo in this way ? > MX6SL -> SOC_IMX6SL > MX6Sx -> SOC_IMX6SX > MX6SLL -> SOC_IMX6SLL > MX6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL > MX6UL_LITESOM -> SOC_IMX6UL_LITESOM > MX6UL_OPOS6UL -> SOC_IMX6UL_OPOS6UL Well, and this is completely wrong. LITESOM is a SOM, not a SOC. So to be honest, we should have the hierarchy SOC (MX6UL) ==> SOM (LITESOM). But we have already, because both MX6UL and MX6UL_LITESOM are defined. IMHO this change would like to clean up, but it adds more confusion. Best regards, Stefano Babic -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
