Dear Ben Warren,
In message <4a68e0c1.2000...@gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> > Enabling or disabling a driver i ssomething that a dumb user can do,
> > so it should be done using
> >
> > CONFIG_
> >
> > as in CONFIG_E1000, CONFIG_EEPRO100, etc.
> >
> >
> Fine with me, although I understand the a
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
>
> In message <20090723214946.ge9...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>
>>> +And to control whether your driver is even enabled, you should use:
>>> + CONFIG_SYS_NET_
>>>
>> In my proposition CONFIG_SYS_ will be not use for dri
Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
In message <20090723214946.ge9...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote:
>
> > +And to control whether your driver is even enabled, you should use:
> > + CONFIG_SYS_NET_
> In my proposition CONFIG_SYS_ will be not use for driver enabling but for
> hardware specific
On 21:04 Sat 18 Jul , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
> ---
> Ben: some things to note:
> - i adopted Jean's proposed naming scheme in the CONFIG section
> - i deprecated calling the driver-specific entry point
> "xxx_initialization()" in favor of "xxx
On Wednesday 22 July 2009 19:00:40 Andy Fleming wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > +
> > + CONFIG Options
> > +
> > +
> > +The common config defines your device should respect (if applicable):
> > + CONFIG_MII - configure in M
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
> ---
> Ben: some things to note:
>- i adopted Jean's proposed naming scheme in the CONFIG section
>- i deprecated calling the driver-specific entry point
> "xxx_initialization()" in f
On Tuesday 21 July 2009 16:55:34 Ben Warren wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 July 2009 03:32:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think
> it's crap, and since there isn't a single driver that use
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 July 2009 03:32:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think
it's crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it yet, you
might say this is a bit ahead
On Tuesday 21 July 2009 03:32:55 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think
> > > it's crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it yet, you
> > > might say this is a bit ahead of the curve.
> >
> > some style n
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <200907210228.09882.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> >
> > Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think it's
> > crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it yet, you might
> > say this is a bit ahead of the curve.
>
> some style ne
Dear Ben Warren,
In message <4a654d77.4070...@gmail.com> you wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
> > ---
> > Ben: some things to note:
> > - i adopted Jean's proposed naming scheme in the CONFIG section
> >
> Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I p
On Tuesday 21 July 2009 01:09:11 Ben Warren wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
> > ---
> > Ben: some things to note:
> > - i adopted Jean's proposed naming scheme in the CONFIG section
>
> Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think it's
>
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
> ---
> Ben: some things to note:
> - i adopted Jean's proposed naming scheme in the CONFIG section
>
Is this a generally-accepted naming convention? I personally think it's
crap, and since there isn't a single driver that uses it ye
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
---
Ben: some things to note:
- i adopted Jean's proposed naming scheme in the CONFIG section
- i deprecated calling the driver-specific entry point
"xxx_initialization()" in favor of "xxx_register()" because the
former is way too c
14 matches
Mail list logo
