Dear Michal Simek, In message <49913792.9060...@monstr.eu> you wrote: > > >>> COBJS-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_3C589) += 3c589.o > >>> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_PPC4xx_EMAC) += 4xx_enet.o > >>> COBJS-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_AX88180) += ax88180.o > >>> > >> > >> What makes you think that CONFIG_PPC4xx_EMAC has a good place between > >> CONFIG_DRIVER_3C589 and CONFIG_DRIVER_AX88180? > > From my point of view make me more sense to rename 4xx_enec.c file to > correspond > with driver name. I mean if the config is CONFIG_PPC4xx_EMAC the filename > should > be ppc4xx_emac.c or in second case CONFIG_4XX_ENET for current 4xx_enet.c > file. > From these two choices I like the first one.
Well, that's IMO for the PPC4xx custodian to decide. Stefan, what do you think? > I would like to describe what happen. I sent to mailing list two patches. One > with Makefile sort and second with LL_TEMAC. First patch just sort some labels > in drivers/net/Makefile. Wolfgang sent that he don't like it and he reject > this > patch. I haven't wanted to sort any Makefile labels I just wanted to add > LL_TEMAC driver. Makefile sort was not my point. I'm aware of this. But this is how contributing to U-Boot works : you just want to add a tiny piece of code here, and you will find yourself involved in some bigger cleanup all over the place. That's what happens to me all day, and to many others, so please help to carry that burdon. Thanks. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de Yes, it's a technical challenge, and you have to kind of admire people who go to the lengths of actually implementing it, but at the same time you wonder about their IQ... -- Linus Torvalds in <5phda5$ml...@palladium.transmeta.com> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot