Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-21 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Wolfgang, On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon Glass, > > In message > you > wrote: >> >> > You are wrong. This includes a number of functions, and macros, too, >> > for example: > ... >> That's a very manageable and small series of patches I think if we >> w

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-19 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Simon Glass, In message you wrote: > > > You are wrong. This includes a number of functions, and macros, too, > > for example: ... > That's a very manageable and small series of patches I think if we > want to use either. I do like an obvious name, and we already have > CONFIG_... I thin

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-19 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Wolfgang, On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon, > > In message > you > wrote: >> >> Thanks for looking at this so closely - it's just an RFC at this >> stage, but I think it has promise. > > Agreed. > >> > I think config_* is not a good name to use here - it ha

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-19 Thread Harvey Chapman
I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but I've found as a new u-boot user there are often features that require enabling other CONFIG macros that I think should just be auto-enabled as dependencies. Please keep this in mind for any future designs. For example, when enabling CONFIG_CMD_UBI and

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-19 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Simon, In message you wrote: > > Thanks for looking at this so closely - it's just an RFC at this > stage, but I think it has promise. Agreed. > > I think config_* is not a good name to use here - it has never been a > > reserved prefix so far, so it is IMO a bad idea to turn it into one

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-18 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Tom, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/18/2013 02:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Simon, >> >> In message <1361207920-24983-1-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you >> wrote: >>> Many parts of the U-Boot code base are

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-18 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon, > > In message <1361207920-24983-1-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote: >> Many parts of the U-Boot code base are sprinkled with #ifdefs. This makes >> different boards compile different versions of the sourc

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-18 Thread Tom Rini
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/18/2013 02:23 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Simon, > > In message <1361207920-24983-1-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you > wrote: >> Many parts of the U-Boot code base are sprinkled with #ifdefs. >> This makes different boards compile differ

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-18 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Simon, In message <1361207920-24983-1-git-send-email-...@chromium.org> you wrote: > Many parts of the U-Boot code base are sprinkled with #ifdefs. This makes > different boards compile different versions of the source code, meaning > that we must build all boards to check for failures. It is

[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Provide a mechanism to avoid using #ifdef everywhere

2013-02-18 Thread Simon Glass
Many parts of the U-Boot code base are sprinkled with #ifdefs. This makes different boards compile different versions of the source code, meaning that we must build all boards to check for failures. It is easy to misspell an #ifdef and there is not as much checking of this by the compiler. Multiple