Bug#612376: flash-kernel: please include efikamx support

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011, Hector Oron wrote:
> > Finally, is "mx51" going to be the name of the kernel flavour?  Can
> > you have mx5 and mx6 in one kernel?  What about different mx5x
> > platforms in one kernel?
> I am not sure which kernel flavour we should use, hence I dropped an
> email to debian-arm@l.d.o, there is contributed code, probably by
> ubuntu, which adds "imx51", "mx51", etc... I think that needs to be
> clarified, so I am working on it.
> <http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2011/04/msg00009.html>

 It would be nice if you could file a bug against linux to get the new
 flavor; I personally would recommend -mx5.  Currently, the upstream
 kernel doesn't support building both i.MX51 and i.MX53 in the same
 kernel but the Linux Linaro branch and the Freescale BSP kernel do;
 also, I think the patches by Eric Miao allowing this (runtime phys
 offset patches -- i.MX51 has phys RAM at 0x90000000 while i.MX53 has it
 at 0x70000000, see arch/arm/mach-mx5/Makefile.boot) are pending in
 Sacha Hauer's tree, but I'm not entirely sure.

 Technically, mx5 would only support mx51 right now, but would soon
 allow supporting mx53 as well, notably for mx53loco / quickstart boards
 which I bet a bunch of Debian ARM users will get.


 I reviewed your commits, some notes:
 - fa8fdbc9607ebd892eba1e1c3b4ad12f710c901f Add support for Efika devices:
   please sort machine names alphabetically in the case statement
 - 7e6bd315830ad89c11aadebbe45f1636dd686055 README: Add Efika support:
   kernel uses "nettop" in cpuinfo, but vendors uses "Smarttop"; also,
   vendor uses "Efika MX" not just "Efika".  I would prefer just the
   vendor name in the README  but you could have both with "Efika MX
   Smarttop (nettop)"; the kernel name is "set in stone" now, but it's
   not too nice
 - 4f873843d590b6d5475dcef7d863919c89609b4f
   flash-kernel-installer.isinstallable: Add mx51 as subarchitecture:
   I realize this comes from other parts of d-i, but would it make sense
   to use arm*/mx5?  My preference would be to avoid subarches as long
   as possible but use upstream names when required; arch/arm/mach-mx5
   is the current name, so that's what I'd use.
 - 5deea668506d7a26a8b79fea218101c7900b9752 changelog: add Efika support
   (Closes: #612376):
   please amend the currently UNRELEASED changelog entry

 Othewise looked good; thanks!

 I'm also in favor of a boot.scr.

 Outside of Martin's remarks, we need to agree on whether this is meant
 for installation of Debian to PATA, to SD card, or both and whether
 this is meant to work with vendor's u-boot, upstream u-boot, or both.

   Thanks,
-- 
Loïc Minier