Hi Tom, On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Tom, > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:13:18AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > [snip] > >> I've brought over the patches that I can that don't depend on autoconf: > >> > >> 6c0e6c9 (HEAD, ws/us-config5, us-config5) main: Add debug_bootkeys to > >> avoid #ifdefs > >> 9777b9f main: Add debug_parser() to avoid #ifdefs > >> 2fc85b6 main: Correct header order > >> 24e80be main: Fix typos and checkpatch warnings in command line reading > >> 9e9e3b9 main: Use get/setenv_ulong() > >> 1290cb7 main: Move boot_delay code into its own function > >> cd8f13e main: Separate out the two abortboot() functions > >> ca2451c net: Add prototype for update_tftp > >> 4a2a802 at91: Correct CONFIG_AUTOBOOT_PROMPT definition for pm9263 > >> > >> I will run these through the builder and send an interim series > >> without autoconf. We still have a lot of inline #ifdefs, and static > >> functions and local variables must also be #ifdefed out if not used. > >> Still, there is some improvement. > > > > I've read them over and they look good. Since you didn't re-send > > anything I assume they passed your builder test and I'll apply them next > > week (and give them my own builder test like everything else gets). > > Thanks! > Just checking up if you got to this? I am thinking of respinning the autoconf series on top of this. > > Yes I did a full build and saw no additional failures from my patch. > But then I did a few whitespace changes and only built a few boards > after that. I think it's OK though. > > Regards, Simon
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
