Hi Michael, On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> wrote: > Am Freitag 25 Mai 2012, 20:50:09 schrieb Joe Hershberger: > [..snip..] >> That way you aren't adding a function that noone else uses and you >> don't need a silly guard around it. > > Hi Joe, > > thanks for the review. I think i'll drop the dynamic "ethernet variable name" > support entirely. Two reasons: > - it isn't really dynamic, eg. the function always evaluates the name to > "ethaddr" > - back then when i wrote the support for the board the name was "eth1addr" > and mike suggested to use the by index function for the getter and a new > function for the setter. But i guess its not worth the hassle ;)
OK. Since it is specific to your board support anyway, that seems fine. > btw, imho your solution introduces a discrepancy between the setter and > getter. It does, yes. There is an inherent discrepancy, though, given that one is used and the other is not. I have no problem adding the accessor if there are clients for it to justify its code space. > i hope it doesnt bother you if i don't adapt your solution. But thanks > for the work. Not a problem at all. -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
