[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] 1/5: cmd_boot

[Chris Elston]

I don't use minicom myself, all our targets have ethernet as a minimum.  But
wouldn't including the patch with an '#ifdef MINICOM' be a reasonable
compromise?

Chris.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd at denx.de]
> Sent: 31 March 2003 13:35
> To: Chris Elston
> Cc: U-Boot Mailing List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] 1/5: cmd_boot 
> 
> 
> In message 
> <A1DD009E87CDD2119E940008C7334DA402339AFF at exchange01> you wrote:
> > Is there any reason we can't have an '#ifdef MINICOM'?
> 
> Ar you just asking, or do you really experience any  minicom  related
> problems your own? [Why do you use it, then?]
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
> 
> -- 
> Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
> Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at 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
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
> service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
> anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> 

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________