[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/6] config_distro_bootcmd.h: Add shared block definition for the host interface

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 2 March 2015 at 09:54, Stephen Warren <swarren at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 02/28/2015 07:14 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> +Stephen for real this time
>>
>> Hi Sjoerd,
>>
>> On 28 February 2015 at 07:05, Sjoerd Simons
>> <sjoerd.simons at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 12:23 -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +Stephen who knows more about this stuff
>>>>
>>>> On 19 February 2015 at 15:41, Sjoerd Simons
>>>> <sjoerd.simons at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Define the common shared block environment for the host interface in
>>>>> preperation for the sandbox build to use config_distro_bootcmd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons at collabora.co.uk>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   include/config_distro_bootcmd.h | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>>> b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>>> index 07a0b3b..ff0e3a8 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/config_distro_bootcmd.h
>>>>> @@ -32,6 +32,18 @@
>>>>>   #define BOOTENV_DEV_NAME_BLKDEV(devtypeu, devtypel, instance) \
>>>>>          #devtypel #instance " "
>>>>>
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX
>>>>> +#define BOOTENV_SHARED_HOST    BOOTENV_SHARED_BLKDEV(host)
>>>>> +#define BOOTENV_DEV_HOST       BOOTENV_DEV_BLKDEV
>>>>> +#define BOOTENV_DEV_NAME_HOST  BOOTENV_DEV_NAME_BLKDEV
>>>>> +#else
>>>>> +#define BOOTENV_SHARED_HOST
>>>>> +#define BOOTENV_DEV_HOST \
>>>>> +       BOOT_TARGET_DEVICES_references_HOST_without_CONFIG_SANDBOX
>>>>> +#define BOOTENV_DEV_NAME_HOST \
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we use upper case in #defines?
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason for this is that it is consistent with all other block device
>>> blocks in that file e.g:
>>>
>>> #define BOOTENV_DEV_SATA \
>>>     BOOT_TARGET_DEVICES_references_SATA_without_CONFIG_CMD_SATA
>>>
>>> So i'd prefer to to keep it that way. Btw, note that this is used for
>>> compile time error reporting rather then something you'd refer to in
>>> code.
>>
>>
>> OK I see.
>
>
> Yes, in this case that mixed-case variable name is essentially an error
> message to the user. The mixed case hopefully makes it more legible since
> only other variable names are in upper case, and the rest of the warning
> text is lower case. We can't use e.g. #error here, since this error can only
> be detected in the middle of a macro expansion rather than via some
> top-level singleton #if/#ifdef check.

Makes sense. Maybe we could add a comment to this effect?

Regards,
Simon