On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:24:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a > > > board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what > > > belongs in the header file? > > > > The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are > > things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things > > like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. > > perhaps i haven't thought this through sufficiently, but it seems > like moving all target configuration to the *_defconfig files and > Kbuild system is going to require a fair bit of variable renaming. > > as i recall from the linux kernel coding style, any variables that > begin with "CONFIG_" are meant to be defined in a Kconfig file > somewhere, so if variables are moved from header files to a Kconfig > file to be part of Kbuild, would that not require renaming them if > they don't begin with "CONFIG_"? unless there's no plan to try to keep > that standard.
No, you're right, there are a number of things we have today that are in CONFIG namespace but aren't really configurable options, so we'll be renaming those as we hit them. But at the end of the day it will result in a more easily customizable system too. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
