[U-Boot-Users] Proposed change; What do you think?
wd at denx.de
Mon Aug 23 01:38:34 CEST 2004
In message <1092945083.8297.24.camel at blarg.somerset.sps.mot.com> you wrote:
> However, now I need answers to the following question: Do you want
> me to retrofit code into all the Config files to #define CONFIG_HAS_ETHx
> where it currently also has CONFIG_ETHxADDR defined, or where the code
> has a board name even though a CONIG_ETHxADDR is not defined too?
Do you want to have your patch accepted?
> Happy to do this, just realize that to be backwards compatible
> with existing config files, I'll have to change many config files.
> I can not test them all. I can test the 4 I have in front of me.
Please keep all files in a konsistent state.
> FYI, I am also willing to remove the #ifdef conditionality from
> the bd_t structure around these ETH addr fields as well, but with
> the caveat that it changes other people's bd_t structures and
> potentially messes up their Linux interfaces. Again, I can't
> test all that either...
Don't put to many different things into a single patch. This last
part has a chance of being rejected (depending on what you're going
to do; I'm not sure I understand your intentions).
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
We fight only when there is no other choice. We prefer the ways of
-- Kirk, "Spectre of the Gun", stardate 4385.3
More information about the U-Boot