> Am 13.02.2020 um 16:01 schrieb Tom Rini <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:33:53PM +0100, Jens Rehsack wrote: > >> From: Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> >> >> Introduce SUPPLIER analogous to VENDOR to allow (from customer perspective) >> a VENDOR using it's SUPPLIER's common/ code. >> >> This is reasonable, when a VENDOR (from customer perspective) builds >> several machines sharing some features (e.g. some FPGA which has to be >> initialized during u-boot) but wants to use common NXP or Samsung code >> for the BSP instead of copying and create merge overhead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> >> --- >> Makefile | 4 +++- >> arch/Kconfig | 12 ++++++++++++ >> config.mk | 6 +++++- >> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Can you provide a follow-up where this it clearer / easier to do > something than today? Thanks!
Given you buy - let's say some NXP SoC - LS20XX, LX21XX. The common NXP code for the Management Complex is needed. I2C code either - this covers board/freescale/common/... Given you build machines from there with different SoCs under a new label - let's call it SuperLink, so you have * board/freescale/common * board/superlink/common * board/superlink/legacy-tune <-- based on some PowerPC * board/superlink/easy-tune <-- based on LS2088 * board/superlink/heavy-tune <-- based on LX2160 All *-tune machines the customer buys from SuperLink have a similar FPGA (there is a little bit more, but for the vision it's probably better to stay small) and a similar external PMIC/BMC. But SuperLink still uses code from board/freescale/common (their supplier) and it's not reasonable to copy those. I rate all this not suitable for a commit message. How do you suggest to proceed? Best regards -- Jens Rehsack - [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
