[PATCH v3 3/3] ARM: OMAP: TI814X: Create board support and enable build for TI8148 EVM

[Pedanekar, Hemant]

Igor Grinberg wrote on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:31 PM:

> On 10/03/11 18:45, Pedanekar, Hemant wrote:
>> Hi Igor,
>> 
>> Igor Grinberg wrote on Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:38 PM:
>> 
>>> Hi Hemant,
>>> 
>>> On 09/29/11 04:09, Hemant Pedanekar wrote:
>>>> This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM.
>>>> Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with
>>>> machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.
>>> 
>>> Should we really rename the existing file?
>>> Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first?
>>> (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new
>>> TI8148 EVM in to the existing file?
>> 
>> But won't this be misleading?
> 
> Misleading? For whom?
> Actually, I don't really care how you call that file.
> What I care (and I think not just me) is uniformity, so
> if we decide to rename all those files that have multiple
> boards supported in them, I'm fine with it.
> 
> So pros for my proposed approach would be:
> 1) Currently, there are already board files with multiple boards
>    supported in them that follow the approach and renaming them is   
> really unnecessary. 2) git log will not break.
> 3) boards that cannot be named after the convention like 81xx
>    but can be added to the same file will not require further renaming
>    (like 82x8 - I don't really know if that will exist, just wondering).
> 4) This renaming is really what Linus likes ;)
> 
> cons:
> 1) Misleading?
> 
> Currently, I don't think this renaming is good for anything,
> especially that majority of the board stuff should be transformed
> to the DT descriptors.

Igor,
I agree on the DT part and also understand the "pros" you mentioned.

I can submit the v4 of patches with TI8148 EVM support added in exisitng
board-ti8168evm.c.

Tony, 
Are you OK with the above approach?

Thanks.

   Hemant