[U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: ppc: Rename CONFIG_SYS_CPU in BC3450 board

This caused namespace clash with same macro defined in include/config.h:
cmd_bc3450.c:55:0: warning: "CONFIG_SYS_CPU" redefined [enabled by default] In file included from /tmp/u-boot-marex/include/command.h:30:0, from /tmp/u-boot-marex/include/image.h:49, from /tmp/u-boot-marex/include/common.h:117, from cmd_bc3450.c:27: /tmp/u-boot-marex/include/config.h:3:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de Cc: Detlev Zundel dzu@denx.de --- board/bc3450/cmd_bc3450.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/bc3450/cmd_bc3450.c b/board/bc3450/cmd_bc3450.c index a9e4902..b1f24ce 100644 --- a/board/bc3450/cmd_bc3450.c +++ b/board/bc3450/cmd_bc3450.c @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ #define THERM_WRITE_TL 0x02 #define THERM_WRITE_TH 0x01
-#define CONFIG_SYS_CPU 2 -#define CONFIG_SYS_1SHOT 1 -#define CONFIG_SYS_STANDALONE 0 +#define DS1620_CFG_CPU 2 +#define DS1620_CFG_1SHOT 1 +#define DS1620_CFG_STANDALONE 0
struct therm { int hi; @@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ static int cmd_temp (cmd_tbl_t * cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[]) therm.hi <<= 1; therm.lo <<= 1; ds1620_write_state (&therm); - ds1620_out (THERM_WRITE_CONFIG, 8, CONFIG_SYS_STANDALONE); + ds1620_out (THERM_WRITE_CONFIG, 8, DS1620_CFG_STANDALONE); return 0; } }

Dear Marek Vasut,
In message 1343417623-30978-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de you wrote:
This caused namespace clash with same macro defined in include/config.h:
cmd_bc3450.c:55:0: warning: "CONFIG_SYS_CPU" redefined [enabled by default]
This patch does not apply any more. Please review.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk

Dear Wolfgang Denk,
Dear Marek Vasut,
In message 1343417623-30978-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de you wrote:
This caused namespace clash with same macro defined in include/config.h:
cmd_bc3450.c:55:0: warning: "CONFIG_SYS_CPU" redefined [enabled by default]
This patch does not apply any more. Please review.
Ah, Detlev fixed it, good maintainer he is :-)
Anyway, I think my patch might be better (it preserves the defined bits). Besides, I was working on the -next branch which this patch didn't hit yet, so I didn't notice.
Whichever way you want to fix this is ok, probably discard this patch as noone cares in the end anyway.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Best regards, Marek Vasut
participants (2)
-
Marek Vasut
-
Wolfgang Denk