Dear Joakim Tjernlund,
In message <1292838435-14958-4-git-send-email-joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
you wrote:
> Only these 2 call sites depends on fixups for my mpc8321 based
> board.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c | 2 +-
> arch/powerpc/lib/board.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> index 7a1cae7..88d9dd8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc83xx/cpu_init.c
> @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ int prt_83xx_rsr(void)
> sep = " ";
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
> if (rsr & bits[i].mask) {
> - printf("%s%s", sep, bits[i].desc);
> + printf("%s%s", sep, LINK_OFF(bits[i].desc));
> sep = ", ";
> }
Is my understanding correct that these changes are sufficient only for
your board, and only for your current configuration? And that your
code would break (resp. require more LINK_OFF fixups) if you would -
for example - decide to enable CONFIG_DISPLAY_AER_FULL in your board
configuration (cf. print_83xx_arb_event() above in the same source
file) ?
I object against such a fragile and insular approach.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
It is impractical for the standard to attempt to constrain the
behavior of code that does not obey the constraints of the standard.
- Doug Gwyn
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
