On Monday, July 27, 2015 at 09:05:03 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2015-07-27 10:33:51, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > Hi Pavel, > > > > 2015-07-27 3:38 GMT+09:00 Pavel Machek <pa...@denx.de>: > > > Hi! > > > > > >> We have flipped CONFIG_SPL_DISABLE_OF_CONTROL. We have cleansing > > >> devices, $(SPL_) and CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(), so we are ready to clear > > >> > > >> away the ugly logic in include/fdtdec.h: > > >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL > > >> # if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) && !defined(SPL_OF_CONTROL) > > >> # define OF_CONTROL 0 > > >> # else > > >> # define OF_CONTROL 1 > > >> # endif > > >> #else > > >> # define OF_CONTROL 0 > > >> #endif > > >> > > >> Now CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) is the substitute. It refers to > > >> CONFIG_OF_CONTROL for U-boot proper and CONFIG_SPL_OF_CONTROL for > > >> SPL. > > > > > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is a bit too verbose. Could we get something > > > shorter, like ENABLED()? > > > > The prefix "CONFIG_" is important because this must be > > searched by scripts/basic/fixdep.c > > > > We are familiar with IS_ENABLED() which originates in Linux, > > so a new build-context-depending macro, CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is > > reasonable naming, I believe. > > > > Besides, > > > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_CONTROL) - before > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) - after > > What about CONFIG_EN(OF_CONTROL), then? I don't think confusion is > possible...
I don't like CONFIG_EN(), sorry. It looks like shortening something just for the sake of shortening it, which is only confusing. Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
