[U-Boot] MAKEALL: fix ARM board lists

The LIST_arm rule included the Atmel boards twice (by virtue of
including both LIST_at91 and LIST_ARM9) and was missing all the
arm720t, arm946es, and arm1176 boards.  Change this list to use
boards_by_arch() which is less error prone.  After this change
"./MAKEALL arm" and "./MAKEALL -a arm" build the same boards.

Also add the missing arm946es and arm1176 processors to the ARM9
and ARM11 lists respectively and add an ARM7 list for the arm720t
processor.

Signed-off-by: Allen Martin <amartin@nvidia.com>
---
 MAKEALL |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

On 08/29/2012 12:13 PM, Allen Martin wrote:
> The LIST_arm rule included the Atmel boards twice (by virtue of
> including both LIST_at91 and LIST_ARM9) and was missing all the
> arm720t, arm946es, and arm1176 boards.  Change this list to use
> boards_by_arch() which is less error prone.  After this change
> "./MAKEALL arm" and "./MAKEALL -a arm" build the same boards.
> 
> Also add the missing arm946es and arm1176 processors to the ARM9
> and ARM11 lists respectively and add an ARM7 list for the arm720t
> processor.

Good find!  Would you mind looking quickly over the other arches to see
if they have any similar but now obvious problems (where LIST_${ARCH}
doesn't use boards_by_arch)) ?   Thanks!

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:03:40PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On 08/29/2012 12:13 PM, Allen Martin wrote:
> > The LIST_arm rule included the Atmel boards twice (by virtue of
> > including both LIST_at91 and LIST_ARM9) and was missing all the
> > arm720t, arm946es, and arm1176 boards.  Change this list to use
> > boards_by_arch() which is less error prone.  After this change
> > "./MAKEALL arm" and "./MAKEALL -a arm" build the same boards.
> > 
> > Also add the missing arm946es and arm1176 processors to the ARM9
> > and ARM11 lists respectively and add an ARM7 list for the arm720t
> > processor.
> 
> Good find!  Would you mind looking quickly over the other arches to see
> if they have any similar but now obvious problems (where LIST_${ARCH}
> doesn't use boards_by_arch)) ?   Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Tom

By experiment it look like m68k and mips have problems too, I'll investigate:

$ for i in $(awk '($1 !~ /^#/) {print $2}' boards.cfg  | sort | uniq) ; do
> echo $i
> ./MAKEALL -l -a $i | wc -l
> ./MAKEALL -l $i | wc -l
> done
arm
250
250
avr32
9
9
blackfin
34
34
m68k
44
50
microblaze
1
1
mips
25
19
nds32
3
3
nios2
3
3
openrisc
1
1
powerpc
637
637
sandbox
1
1
sh
20
20
sparc
5
5
x86
3
3


-Allen

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:13:39PM -0700, Allen Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:03:40PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On 08/29/2012 12:13 PM, Allen Martin wrote:
> > > The LIST_arm rule included the Atmel boards twice (by virtue of
> > > including both LIST_at91 and LIST_ARM9) and was missing all the
> > > arm720t, arm946es, and arm1176 boards.  Change this list to use
> > > boards_by_arch() which is less error prone.  After this change
> > > "./MAKEALL arm" and "./MAKEALL -a arm" build the same boards.
> > > 
> > > Also add the missing arm946es and arm1176 processors to the ARM9
> > > and ARM11 lists respectively and add an ARM7 list for the arm720t
> > > processor.
> > 
> > Good find!  Would you mind looking quickly over the other arches to see
> > if they have any similar but now obvious problems (where LIST_${ARCH}
> > doesn't use boards_by_arch)) ?   Thanks!
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tom
> 
> By experiment it look like m68k and mips have problems too, I'll investigate:
> 

It looks like mips splits out the little endian boards into a virtual
"mips_el" architecture that doesn't actually exist in boardfs.cfg, so
maybe I won't touch that.  I founds some other missing/duplicate
boards in mips and m68k though so I'll add those to the patch.

-Allen