On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 08:52:37AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Fri, 2 May 2025 at 08:06, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 07:11:56AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 09:33, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 01, 2025 at 09:04:45AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 1 May 2025 at 08:06, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 07:04:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > This file reads from the environment but does not include the
> > > > > > > correct
> > > > > > > header. Update it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Drop the unnecessary config.h while we are here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Are you sure about that? It was explicitly added in commit
> > > > > > ab61cc7d98f6 ("board: congatec: Remove <common.h> and add needed
> > > > > > includes") probably because of CFG_SYS_... usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well I assumed it wouldn't build if it had it, but perhaps that is
> > > > > incorrect? I understood that CFG_ things had to be values and you
> > > > > couldn't #idef them?
> > > >
> > > > The cases where in that series I added config.h were for good reason,
> > > > either failure to build or tricky size change reasons. All were
> > > > intentional. An audit-and-remove of config.h would be it's own series as
> > > > yes, there's perhaps not the need now as whatever complex chain was
> > > > unwound.
> > >
> > > Oh dear, OK. I'll respin the series.
> > >
> > > Hmm but I see you have sent a series that does some similar tweak[1].
> > > What was the goal there?
> >
> > I fixed your problem. Please don't bother re-spinning this series, it's
> > not clear what problems it's solving correctly.
>
> OK thanks. The problem was trying to include net.h in include/efi.h:
>
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/cover/20250501010456.3930701-1-...@chromium.org/Adding headers to headers needs extra care (so that we don't end up with massive implicit include chains). > So long as that works, we're fine. Having said that, even if it were a > problem, we could always refactor things to put the Ethernet decls in > a separate header. Yes, if there's some problem down the line then some refactoring is likely the thing to look at, not adding more headers to C files (the right path is to unwind the header chain and fix C files, your series doesn't remove env.h from any header). -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
