It would break compatibility with existing scripts and documentation of everyone else. I think we should maintain earlier definitions at least for existing 32-bit implementations.
Best regards, Tolunay
John W. Linville wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:53:11PM +0200, tzachi perelstein wrote:
I can be even more explicitly and suggest [.8, .16, .32, .64]. What do you think?
I think I like that even better.
John
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users