[U-Boot] [PATCH] bootstage: Fix build error for standalone API example
This example doesn't have get_timer() defined, which causes build breakages.
Add #ifdef guards to work around this.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org --- lib/time.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/time.c b/lib/time.c index 69edc3d..5f393c3 100644 --- a/lib/time.c +++ b/lib/time.c @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ void mdelay(unsigned long msec) udelay(1000); }
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void) { static ulong base_time; @@ -64,3 +65,4 @@ ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void)
ulong timer_get_boot_us(void) __attribute__((weak, alias("__timer_get_boot_us"))); +#endif
Hi Simon,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:49:30 -0700 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
This example doesn't have get_timer() defined, which causes build breakages.
Add #ifdef guards to work around this.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
lib/time.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/time.c b/lib/time.c index 69edc3d..5f393c3 100644 --- a/lib/time.c +++ b/lib/time.c @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ void mdelay(unsigned long msec) udelay(1000); }
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void) { static ulong base_time; @@ -64,3 +65,4 @@ ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void)
ulong timer_get_boot_us(void) __attribute__((weak, alias("__timer_get_boot_us"))); +#endif
Isn't it better to move timer_get_boot_us() to common/bootstage.c ? Or is there a plan to use this function not only in bootstage code?
Thanks, Anatolij
Hi Anatolij,
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Anatolij Gustschin agust@denx.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:49:30 -0700 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
This example doesn't have get_timer() defined, which causes build breakages.
Add #ifdef guards to work around this.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
lib/time.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/time.c b/lib/time.c index 69edc3d..5f393c3 100644 --- a/lib/time.c +++ b/lib/time.c @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ void mdelay(unsigned long msec) udelay(1000); }
+#ifdef CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void) { static ulong base_time; @@ -64,3 +65,4 @@ ulong __timer_get_boot_us(void)
ulong timer_get_boot_us(void) __attribute__((weak, alias("__timer_get_boot_us"))); +#endif
Isn't it better to move timer_get_boot_us() to common/bootstage.c ? Or is there a plan to use this function not only in bootstage code?
Yes I sent through the smallest fix.
But as I said in the patch thread I am not sure which is best.
I'm happy to do it either way, so let me know and I can do a patch the other way.
Regards, Simon
Thanks, Anatolij
Dear Simon Glass,
In message CAPnjgZ3of9HxpFrtoMh+tuLDQ7SX4fOVgkU9t=VtWmTukthaxA@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Isn't it better to move timer_get_boot_us() to common/bootstage.c ? Or is there a plan to use this function not only in bootstage code?
Yes I sent through the smallest fix.
But as I said in the patch thread I am not sure which is best.
I'm happy to do it either way, so let me know and I can do a patch the other way.
This is still open, right? If so, then please follow Anatolij';s suggestion. Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hi Wolfgang,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Simon Glass,
In message <CAPnjgZ3of9HxpFrtoMh+tuLDQ7SX4fOVgkU9t= VtWmTukthaxA@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
Isn't it better to move timer_get_boot_us() to common/bootstage.c ? Or is there a plan to use this function not only in bootstage code?
Yes I sent through the smallest fix.
But as I said in the patch thread I am not sure which is best.
I'm happy to do it either way, so let me know and I can do a patch the other way.
This is still open, right? If so, then please follow Anatolij';s suggestion. Thanks.
No, this has been tidied up now with this commit:
3786980 Move bootstage timer out of lib/time.c
Regards, Simon
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 You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350
participants (3)
-
Anatolij Gustschin -
Simon Glass -
Wolfgang Denk