Hello, On 04/30/2011 09:56 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Valentin Longchamp, > > In message > <08249e40b548fff1e636cecf980e11adabda14ac.1302272395.git.valentin.longch...@keymile.com> > you wrote: >> From: Holger Brunck <[email protected]> >> >> To be prepared for mgcoge3ne which has a different SDRAM on board. >> The config was moved from generic code to board specific header. >> >> Signed-off-by: Holger Brunck <[email protected]> >> Acked-by: Heiko Schocher <[email protected]> >> cc: Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> >> cc: Detlev Zundel <[email protected]> >> cc: Valentin Longchamp <[email protected]> >> Signed-off-by: Valentin Longchamp <[email protected]> >> --- >> include/configs/km82xx-common.h | 26 -------------------------- >> include/configs/mgcoge.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/configs/mgcoge2ne.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > If I'm understanding this right, we now duplicate the definitions into > two files, because two boards happen to use the same SDRAM. Would it
Yes. > not make more sense to move this into a single copy of a SDRAM > specific header, which then gets included by all boards that use this > SDRAM type? This way we can avoid multiple copied of the same stuff > (which always is a maintenance nightmare) for popular RAM types. > Yes this sounds reasonable. But later on in the patch serie we replace the mgcoge2ne support with the support for mgcoge3ne which has a different SDRAM. And therefore this common file would become obsolete. I try to rebase these patches that the mgcoge3ne support is also part of this patch. BTW: What would your proposal for a filename for a SDRAM specific header? Best regards Holger Brunck _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
