On 07/05/11 17:08, charvey@matrox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:16:12AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Christopher Harvey,
In message 20110704210619.GA3218@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!