mpc5200b custom board upstreamable?

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:07:20AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 09:13:45AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> >  > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer at pengutronix.de> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >  Hi all,
> >  > >
> >  > >  I had the intention to push the code for a custom mpc5200b board (freely
> >  > >  available, no internal project) upstream. After cleaning up the code I
> >  > >  realized that actually no board specific code is left and our board is
> >  > >  well handled by the mpc5200_simple_platform machine.
> >  > >
> >  > >  The only issue is that the machine only matches things like
> >  > >  "schindler,cm5200", there's no generic entry. Would it be possible to
> >  > >  add a "generic-mpc52xx" entry to this list?
> >  >
> >  > I'm being cautious about this for the time being.  I'd like to have a
> >  > generic match mechanism, but I don't want to do something that isn't
> >  > easy to recover from if it turns out to be brain dead.  For now, just
> >  > add your board name to the explicit match list.
> >
> >  The board is called "generic". No, just kidding ;)
> 
> /me slaps Sascha
> 
> Seriously though; I do intend to fix this, but I don't think adding a
> generic entry to the compatible list is the right way to do it.  For
> example, what would "mpc5200-generic" really mean anyway?  Convention
> for usage of 'compatible' would indicate that it means the *entire
> board* is compatible (obviously not true).  The use-case you're
> talking about is simply "the board uses a 5200 and firmware is sane".
> On the other hand, I may just be overthinking things and compatible is
> the most appropriate place to specify that the board is a mpc5200
> based board.  (please feel free to argue with my; my opinion can
> probably be swayed... attaching promises of beer to your argument is
> probably an effective strategy)

At the moment my compatible entry looks like this:

compatible = "phytec,pcm030","generic-mpc52xx";

What I think would be nice is that "phytec,pcm030" support is used
when available and "generic-mpc52xx" as a fallback. We do not have any
platform specific hacks at the moment, but we may have later. Having
"phytec,pcm030" in the simple machine would prevent us from doing so.

> 
> This is an issue that probably affects the other embedded platforms
> too, so it would be nice to agree on a common method of handling it.
> 
> Regardless, whatever method is chosen, it is also important that it is
> always possible for board specific fixups to override the generic
> behavior.

agreed

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K. - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kontakt-Informationen finden Sie im Header dieser Mail oder
auf der Webseite -> http://www.pengutronix.de/impressum/ <-