Jon Loeliger wrote: > On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 10:32, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > >> Um... that would fix this specific situation - but we might still run >> into the same problem with the next attempt to convert code to the >> new config style. > > Yeah, we just need to pick 'em off one-by-one... :-) > >> For example, there might be code which might be compiled depending on >> CONFIG_PREBOOT. > > Ah, as I understand that one, I think it gets solved in > a slightly different manner. The kernel introduces a "HAS" > variant that indicates if the feature is enabled and > then uses something like CONFIG_HAS_PREBOOT to indicate > and test for its presence. The actual _value_ remains > the CONFIG_PREBOOT symbol. > > jdl
Hi Jon, In a recent patch (picked up by Stefan but not in the current ToT) <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/38092> I added a config CONFIG_FLASH_SHOW_PROGRESS which I used to provide a countdown value as well as configure code (*not* a .o file). Based on my limited understanding and perusal of the linux Kconfig methodology, this looked like an acceptable thing. Is this a violation of Good Design[tm], or is the "CONFIG_HAS_*" principle an additional rule that only applies if you have a separately compiled file, necessary so that the "COBJS-y +=" trick works? Thanks for clarifying, gvb ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
