Hi Gabe, On 17/11/11 21:11, Gabe Black wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com > <mailto:graeme.r...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Gabe, > > On 17/11/11 11:27, Gabe Black wrote: > > Add a target for running u-boot as a coreboot payload in boards.cfg. > > > > Signed-off-by: Gabe Black <gabebl...@chromium.org
[snip] > > As mentioned by others before, there is no reason to have these as > discrete > patches - Please merge into a single 'Add coreboot payload' > > > > Ok. Since there are more patches here than I sent out previously and one > big patch seemed like it was more than "exactly one complete logical > change" I wanted to find out how these should be merged. If they should all > be merged, then that answers the question. Well, if a given patch is meaningless without another, they really should be combined. Of course there are exceptions, like adding a new driver - The code for it gets added in one patch, and the usage in a board in another > Is there any real reason to reference 'chromebook-x86'? > > I don't follow. I'm not referencing it, that's what we're calling our board > since it's an x86 chromebook. I mean, if this is 'generic', why is there a reference to the chromebook? > And finally, what is the plan for motherboard specific coreboot variants? > > > > We haven't worked out all the details, but our current working plan is that > coreboot itself will be specialized per board and that U-Boot will stay > fairly generic and be specialized as needed using the device tree. We may > find that a single version of U-Boot with a superset of drivers is too big > and we need to have different configs for each variant. This probably won't work in and of itself without a major overhaul of the U-Boot driver architecture :) Boards will need their own config for Ethernet drivers for example Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot