Scott Wood wrote: > Dirk Behme wrote: >> Scott Wood wrote: >>> Dirk Behme wrote: >>>> What I still miss: If this warning indicates that something *is* >>>> wrong, why not run MAKEALL and enable it in config for all boards >>>> that show this warning? What's the advantage of having all >>>> maintainers sending patches for their boards? >>> 1. That requires having all toolchains installed, and >> >> Hmm? In nand_util.c we have >> >> #if !defined(CONFIG_SYS_64BIT_VSPRINTF) >> #warning Please define CONFIG_SYS_64BIT_VSPRINTF for correct output! >> #endif >> >> and in Makefile we have >> >> ifdef CONFIG_CMD_NAND >> ifndef CONFIG_NAND_LEGACY >> ... >> COBJS-y += nand_util.o >> endif >> >> So I would assume that this warning appears for all boards having >> CONFIG_CMD_NAND enabled and no CONFIG_NAND_LEGACY and no >> CONFIG_SYS_64BIT_VSPRINTF? Independent of tool chain? > > I don't mean different versions, I mean toolchains that cover all > architectures. If I don't have a superh or blackfin compiler installed, > I'm not going to see any warnings on those boards because they won't > build at all. > > I agree though that it would be nice to grep for existing NAND users and > try to cover the obvious ones.
Ack, this is exactly what I meant :) Dirk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot