On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:33:32AM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 28.09.2017, 11:26 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:16:15AM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 27.09.2017, 14:16 +0200 schrieb Sascha Hauer: > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach- > > > > imx/Kconfig > > > > index 92440e3a75..dab19a33ec 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig > > > > @@ -162,6 +162,10 @@ config ARCH_IMX6UL > > > > bool > > > > select ARCH_IMX6 > > > > > > > > +config ARCH_IMX6ULL > > > > + bool > > > > + select ARCH_IMX6 > > > > + > > > > > > Do we really need this? Seems the MX6ULL is just a stripped down > > > version of the MX6UL. > > > > We probably do not need this, but I suggest to keep it anyway. I > > think > > it makes it a bit clearer that there are indeed i.MX6ul *and* > > i.MX6ull > > and both are supported. > > Yeah, your decision, but I'll notice that we don't have separate > Kconfig symbols for MX6Q/DL, which probably expose more software > visible differences than MX6UL/ULL. While refactoring the patches I realized that having a i.MX6ull function which just calls the corresponding i.MX6ul function doesn't look too nice when additionally we have a board which either has one of both SoCs calling the i.MX6ul version and needs a comment that this is the same as the i.MX6ull variant. I dropped the IMX6ULL symbol. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
