On 07/05/11 17:08, char...@matrox.com wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:16:12AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Dear Christopher Harvey, >> >> In message <20110704210619.ga3...@harvey-pc.matrox.com> you wrote: >>> I'm curious, is it a feature that bd->bi_arch_number can be set at >>> runtime? Do any boards actually make a decision about what value to >> Yes, this is a feature. It comes in handy in a number of cases. >> >>> set this to? If not, then maybe it should be a required value. I've >> Why? > Because if every machine sets an essentially static value at runtime > then it would be a nice compile-time check to do. But, there is no > point since the bi_arch_number isn't fixed for each u-boot > configuration.
Right. >>> submitted some patches that deal with the same sort of issue, so I'm >>> interested in seeing that happens to this one. >> Sorry, I can't follow... > I was refering to this patch: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/103149/ > which is similar. No, you are wrong! It is not similar even a bit! It does completely different thing. Your patch: warns about machine type not set. My patch: just adds a configuration _option_ which you can use, but you don't have to. See... It is not the same! -- Regards, Igor. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot