On Monday 16 February 2009 16:03:36 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > Then I don't understand what you are talking about or what your patch > > > is doing. To me it looks as if you were removing the bi_enetaddr[] > > > resp. bi_enet?addr[] from the bd_info structure. > > > > the discussion has moved on. the original patch removed the fields, but > > in the follow ups it was proposed simply renaming them. please review > > the context of each reply. > > You just mentioned in one message a (IMHO silly) name > bi_padding_was_enetaddr[] which did not look to me as if you intended > to keep the funtionality.
padding/deprecated/whatever. it's the same thing: it becomes internal/legacy only and no new code touches it. > And even renaming is BAD as it breaks compatibility with the Linux > kernel. It's bad enough that we have a binary data structure as a > critical interface, but suing different variable names for the same > fields would make it definitely worse. that doesnt make any sense at all. the kernel isnt passed the structure as seen in the C language, it gets passed a binary blob. how the kernel chooses to interpret it is up to the kernel. > Please leave that structure untouched. > > This is my final statement on this issue. you'd think the maintainer would be more open to talking about issues instead of closing their mind and ignoring improvements -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
