On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 03:40:15PM +0200, Quentin Schulz wrote: > Hi Dario, > > On 5/15/25 3:30 PM, Dario Binacchi wrote: > > Standardize on using the IS_ENABLED macro. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binac...@amarulasolutions.com> > > > > --- > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c > > index 806adcf145fa..6c53555d22bf 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m/soc.c > > @@ -791,7 +791,7 @@ int boot_mode_getprisec(void) > > #endif > > #if defined(CONFIG_IMX8MN) || defined(CONFIG_IMX8MP) > > You can even do those two as well :) > > and all the others in this file :) I would recommend to only do for those > that start with CONFIG_ which are Kconfig symbols. E.g. PHYS_SDRAM_2_SIZE > isn't, so I don't think you can use IS_ENABLED. > > The easiest way to check everything is fine is to compile before and after > patching the file and checking that the output is bit to bit identical (you > may need to change the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to guarantee that though?
A change like that would just be code churn and I'd rather not see it.
Especially since yes, you *can* get away with IS_ENABLED(FOO) and the
kernel does it in a few places, but you shouldn't do that in U-Boot as
it's more likely to be an error (you wanted IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO)) than
a helpful case of:
if (IS_ENABLED(FOO)) { ... }
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
