Ran Hong commented on a discussion on bsps/powerpc/qoriq/start/uboot_support.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1046#note_143492 > + * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR > PURPOSE > + * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE > + * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR > + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF > + * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS > + * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN > + * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) > + * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF > THE > + * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. > + */ > + > +#include <stdint.h> > + > +#include <bsp.h> > + > +#if defined(HAS_UBOOT) Removing HAS_UBOOT sounds dangerous to me. Many application developers may use it in their application codes to decide how to obtain the environment variables. I did it in my application code. Making changes to other BSPs is also beyond the scope of this merge request I made for. I don't have other boards to test if the new way of getting uboot_environment and uboot_environment_size works, and whether it is compatible with other users' existing code. -- View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1046#note_143492 You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.
_______________________________________________ bugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/bugs
