[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] New CONFIG_BOOTP_SERVER option

[Jon Loeliger]

On Fri, 2007-08-10 at 07:54, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> > >> #define CONFIG_BOOTP_DEFAULT		(CONFIG_BOOTP_SUBNETMASK | \
> > >> 					CONFIG_BOOTP_GATEWAY	 | \
> > >> 					CONFIG_BOOTP_HOSTNAME	 | \
> > >> -					CONFIG_BOOTP_BOOTPATH)
> > >> +					CONFIG_BOOTP_BOOTPATH	 | \
> > >> +					CONFIG_BOOTP_SERVER)
> > >> #ifndef CONFIG_BOOTP_MASK
> > >> #define CONFIG_BOOTP_MASK		CONFIG_BOOTP_DEFAULT
> 
> We don't even have include/cmd_confdefs.h any more...

That is correct!

As you may recall, I had asked him to rewrite his patch
against the new CONFIG_CMD_* style that was in -testing
specifically to avoid this issue.

> > > If I understand corrrectly, this patch changes the behaviour for  all
> > > boards that currently don't define CONFIG_BOOTP_SERVER.
> > >
> > > Is this intentional?
> > 
> > If I understand this correctly, because CONFIG_BOOTP_MASK is tested
> > and I don't see anyone defining this, it will *not* touch any
> > configuration right now.  Subsequently for consistency the code in
> > bootp.c _may_ move to also using this MASK variable but then many
> > configs will have to be touched.  Many configs potentially can simply
> > move to CONFIG_BOOTP_DEFAULT.
> 
> Hmmm... I have to admit that I  never  liked  this  CONFIG_BOOTP_MASK
> stuff so I'm happy it's gone.

Hi!  I can address this issue! :-)

That is correct.  It went away with the Command Config rewrite
as it was in the same file and style.

> So in any case the patch must be cleaned up and resubmitted.

Agreed.

> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

Thanks,
jdl