Hi Mike,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Saturday 14 January 2012 20:16:35 Simon Glass wrote:
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 12 January 2012 00:41:24 Simon Glass wrote:
Still don't quite get it though. For example, the beagle board
defines
show_boot_progress() but does not define CONFIG_SHOW_BOOT_PROGRESS,
so
wouldn't that break that board?
that sounds like an odd-man-out that needs fixing rather than
allowing to
live
Fair enough. although I suspect there will be many. If I could actually get a MAKEALL to run without producing 100s of broken boards then it would be easier to do this sort of thing. At the moment it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. My warnings series aimed to improve things slightly, but I don't think others have these problems.
that's fair. if it's a small # of boards, i'd prefer to migrate them.
if
it's a lot more, we can punt for now (add to the TODO?) and add comments
to
the code why we have these checks.
OK, I don't know the answer to that but will try it out, and adjust that patch as needed.
I have got back to this now - it seem that I can rely on the existing weak function, so I will do so.
I only want to update two of the patches, so will just send those ones. The rest should be fine as is.
Regards, SImon