[U-Boot-Users] Proposed change; What do you think?

[Jon Loeliger]

On Sun, 2004-08-22 at 18:38, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> 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.

Oh, I'm happy to keep it in a consistent state.  That's not the
question I was trying to get answered.  I'm seeking acceptance of
the condition that I can not test all the affected boards even
though the patch would necessarily touch many boards.  Compile, sure.
Test, no way.

> > 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).

I never said it would all be one patch.

Furthermore, I was merely suggesting I'd be willing to work on
the suggestion that Dan Malek had proposed.  ACtually, just one
aspect of it, specifically WRT the ethernet MAC address fields.

As I have it in my tree now, it has been left conditional, just
the names of the #ifdef conditional has changed.

jdl