Le 29/10/2010 12:13, Wolfgang Denk a écrit :
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message4CCA87B9.5090203@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Dear Reinhard Meyer,
In message4CC9E2A7.3080506@emk-elektronik.de you wrote:
Replace CONFIG_RELOC_FIXUP_WORKS by CONFIG_BROKEN_RELOC_FIXUPSeems a slight misnomer to me, and a bit hides what it really does. What about CONFIG_NEEDS_DATA_RELOC_FIXUP ?
Thinking about that, I feel the name is too long. And eventually not clear enough either.
How about CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC ?
OK, since I had that in mind, too. I skipped it however since "manual" for me smells like really some extra manual labour. But I guess any full descriptive term would be too long.
Yes, that's what I think too.
OK, renamed into CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC.
Wait... This is the other way around, isn't it? When a board defines CONFIG_RELOC_FIXUP_WORKS, it means "no need to do manual fixups", I think.
Amicalement,