6 May
2010
6 May
'10
12:59 p.m.
Dear "Hiremath, Vaibhav",
In message 19F8576C6E063C45BE387C64729E7394044E351B9F@dbde02.ent.ti.com you wrote:
I do agree that we don't have to undef here, but agreed to Nishant's comment only because from user point of view, if user would like to enable ONENAND support then for him it's easy he just have to comment NAND line and make change this #define. He doesn't have to dig inside code to find out whether ONENAND is supported or not.
Hm... what makes you think we could assume that commented out code is actually working and can be enabled as we like? This is a highly speculative assumption, and probably more often wrong than right.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Why can you only have two doors on a chicken coop? If it had four it
would be a chicken sedan.