Dear Jean-Christophe,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
>
> > I've seen 2 others functions which are commom.
> >
> > Could we use the patch that reply to this message instead?
>
> The only downside that I can think of is that configuration that truly
> don't require strmhz
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've seen 2 others functions which are commom.
>
> Could we use the patch that reply to this message instead?
The only downside that I can think of is that configuration that truly
don't require strmhz() and don't use --gc-sections wil
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> When I read the patch, I really like it. But when I take a look on all board.c
>
> I've seen 2 others functions which are commom.
>
> Could we use the patch that reply to this message instead?
Sorry, which spec
On 13:41 Mon 18 Aug , Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> ARM, i386, m68k and ppc all have identical implementations of strmhz().
> Other architectures don't provide this function at all.
>
> This patch moves strmhz() into lib_generic, reducing code duplication
> and providing a more unified API acros
ARM, i386, m68k and ppc all have identical implementations of strmhz().
Other architectures don't provide this function at all.
This patch moves strmhz() into lib_generic, reducing code duplication
and providing a more unified API across architectures.
Signed-off-by: Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PR
5 matches
Mail list logo
