On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 02:04:31PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 08:32:11 -0500 > Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:58:50AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 20:43:51 -0500 > > > Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > At this point, sunxi-common.h is used for all systems except for some > > > > MACH_SUN50I variants. Remove the now basically empty header files and > > > > update CONFIG_SYS_CONFIG_NAME to use sunxi-common.h directly. > > > > > > So is this #include <include/configs/$CONFIG_SYS_CONFIG_NAME.h> the only > > > user of this symbol? I was on the brink of removing those files several > > > times already, but wasn't sure if that has side effects. > > > I think buildman names use that as well, so we can't run "./buildman > > > sun7i" anymore? > > > If that's the only thing, I am fine with this. > > > > Yup, that's the only place it's used. > > > > > Actually the content of sun50i.h is bogus, since we don't define > > > CONFIG_GICV2, so don't need the GIC addresses. > > > So this can go as well, and SYS_CONFIG_NAME can maybe just become "sunxi"? > > > > > > Samuel, does this torpedo any RISC-V efforts? > > > > I'll do the move for v2 and keep an eye out if that's a problem for > > RISC-V efforts. > > Thanks. I guess we can bring it back, if needed, or turn it upside down > by including "sunxi-riscv.h" from sunxi.h, inside an #ifdef.
Or pick the conflicting symbol as something to migrate to Kconfig? :) -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
