Dear Albert, > > After Reinhard's remark on boards.cfg vs MAKEALL, I may have accepted > > the patch a bit hastily. All of these boards are already in boards.cfg, > > and need not be in makeall IIUC. > > > > Thus, I am rolling back master one notch and will mark the patch as > > Supersedes (could not find a better match for "not needed any more") > > ... or not: here, adding this patch should have resulted in 12 more > boards built and 12 more boards failing to build, but actuelly 9 succeed. > > Reinhard, are you sure that boards that are in boards.cfg *and* in > MAKEALL will fail to build? This is not consistent with what I see here > with this patch.
When at91sam9261 was still in MAKEALL, it did build clean (no errors or warnings), but the report at the end of a MAKEALL run had it in the list of boards with problems. After removing it from MAKEALL the effect was gone. I also noticed that it was not build twice, as one might expect. Maybe the effect was only there with an explicit "MAKEALL at91", I don't know - and its not worth to experiment there :) On any account, however, boards in boards.cfg are automatically included in a MAKEALL run. Best Regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
