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

[Pedanekar, Hemant]

Tony Lindgren wrote on Friday, October 07, 2011 12:47 AM:

> * Pedanekar, Hemant <hemantp at ti.com> [111004 02:07]:
>> 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?
> 
> Yes, let's not do renaming unless it's really needed. We'll be getting
> rid of the board-*.c files anyways with device tree. So let's consider
> the board-*.c files to be in minimal maintenance mode until they will
> eventually get removed. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony

Ok, thanks Igor and Tony, I will send v4 with above change.

   Hemant