On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Robert, > > In message <alpine.LFD.2.20.1607230737010.12216@localhost.localdomain> you > wrote: > > > 3094 CONFIG_AT91SAM9XE > > 3095 enable special bootcounter support on at91sam9xe > > based boards. > > 3096 CONFIG_BLACKFIN > > 3097 enable special bootcounter support on blackfin > > based boards. > > 3098 CONFIG_SOC_DA8XX > > 3099 enable special bootcounter support on da850 based > > boards. > > This is name space pollution t best, and has potential to cause > unwanted side effects. This needs thorough checking and cleanup, if > it should turn out thatthese macros are used only to select specific > bootcount implementations - in that case, they should be renamed > into something like CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_* or such. > > Heiko, maybe you could have a look at that, please?
i'm not sure it's as bad as it looks, since those macros are used specifically in drivers/bootcount/Makefile: obj-y += bootcount.o obj-$(CONFIG_AT91SAM9XE) += bootcount_at91.o obj-$(CONFIG_BLACKFIN) += bootcount_blackfin.o obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_DA8XX) += bootcount_davinci.o obj-$(CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_AM33XX) += bootcount_davinci.o obj-$(CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_RAM) += bootcount_ram.o obj-$(CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_ENV) += bootcount_env.o obj-$(CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_I2C) += bootcount_i2c.o and drivers/bootcount/ is processed only if: obj-$(CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_LIMIT) += bootcount/ but i do see the single, more precise example of CONFIG_BOOTCOUNT_AM33XX, so someone else can decide if anything should be renamed here. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot