Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-02-01 Thread Harry Waschkeit
 On 30.01.21 10:07, Stefan Roese wrote: Hi Harry, Hi Stefan, On 28.01.21 08:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Instead of implementing redundant environments in two very similar functions env_sf_save(), handle redundancy in one function, placing the few differences in appropriate pre-compiler secti

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-30 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 08:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Instead of implementing redundant environments in two very similar functions env_sf_save(), handle redundancy in one function, placing the few differences in appropriate pre-compiler sections depending on config option CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND.

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-30 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Harry, On 29.01.21 18:18, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Hi again Stefan, On 29.01.21 08:16, Stefan Roese wrote: On 28.01.21 12:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Even though an "if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(...))" would statically evaluate to '0' without active redundancy in environments, the parser sees th

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-29 Thread Harry Waschkeit
Hi again Stefan, On 29.01.21 08:16, Stefan Roese wrote: On 28.01.21 12:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Even though an "if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(...))" would statically evaluate to '0' without active redundancy in environments, the parser sees the syntax error of the non-existing structure element.

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-28 Thread Stefan Roese
On 28.01.21 12:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Even though an "if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(...))" would statically evaluate to '0' without active redundancy in environments, the parser sees the syntax error of the non-existing structure element. So, I don't see a chance for avoiding the #if construct

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-28 Thread Harry Waschkeit
On 28.01.21 11:11, Stefan Roese wrote: Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 11:00, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Hi Stefan, thanks a lot for your prompt reply :-) And sorry that I didn't manage to continue on that for such a long time ... On 28.01.21 09:50, Stefan Roese wrote: Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 08:21, Har

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-28 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 11:00, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Hi Stefan, thanks a lot for your prompt reply :-) And sorry that I didn't manage to continue on that for such a long time ... On 28.01.21 09:50, Stefan Roese wrote: Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 08:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Instead of implemen

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-28 Thread Harry Waschkeit
Hi Stefan, thanks a lot for your prompt reply :-) And sorry that I didn't manage to continue on that for such a long time ... On 28.01.21 09:50, Stefan Roese wrote: Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 08:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Instead of implementing redundant environments in two very similar functi

Re: [PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-28 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Harry, On 28.01.21 08:21, Harry Waschkeit wrote: Instead of implementing redundant environments in two very similar functions env_sf_save(), handle redundancy in one function, placing the few differences in appropriate pre-compiler sections depending on config option CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND.

[PATCH] env: sf: single function env_sf_save()

2021-01-27 Thread Harry Waschkeit
Instead of implementing redundant environments in two very similar functions env_sf_save(), handle redundancy in one function, placing the few differences in appropriate pre-compiler sections depending on config option CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND. Additionally, several checkpatch complaints were addr