On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:13:27 +0200 Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Peter, > > In message <1243192952.703.7.ca...@ptyser-laptop> you wrote: > > > > > CodingStyle Ch.12 suggests that it's the other fsl arches that are in > > > violation here, not 83XX: > > Agreed... > > > Either way is fine with me, as long as things are consistent. It looked > > like most Freescale CPUs in U-Boot as well as Linux used the lowercase > > convention for CONFIG_<cpu type> so I thought: > > a. Most likely someone made a conscious decision to use lowercase I can understand it in comments and quotes, just not in constants in the code. > > b. It'd be much easier to change just 83xx than all other arches:) that's not a good reason to do it this way though. > > If others would prefer standardizing on uppercase, I can submit new > > patches for 85xx, 5xxx, 86xx, etc. This would be still be inconsistent > > with Linux though, which is a bit annoying. > > It seems Linux uses 8?xx with very few exceptions (CONFIG_SND_VIA82XX* > and CONFIG_EDAC_MPC85XX), so let's do the same here. so linux is inconsistent too. I'm a fan of a more self-consistent CONFIG_MPC85XX_MDS over mixed-case names like linux' CONFIG_MPC85xx_MDS. I wonder if the linux ppc guys would accept a s/CONFIG_MPC8?xx/CONFIG_MPC8?XX/g rename patch for linux... Kim _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
