2015-07-27 19:52 GMT+09:00 Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>: > 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.
Me neither. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
