From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bartlomiej Sieka <tur@semihalf.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:23:08 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH/RFC] mpc5200: switch to CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT
In-Reply-To: <fa686aa40708311039u24662e81q45094efb401d9e5a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20070830173340.24697.19740.stgit@trillian.cg.shawcable.net>	<20070830165711.9982bf08.kim.phillips@freescale.com>	<fa686aa40708301533y610ce589k5782aa717e93a5ef@mail.gmail.com>
	<fa686aa40708311039u24662e81q45094efb401d9e5a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46DC6D2C.6020000@semihalf.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Grant Likely wrote:
[...]
>>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_OF_FLAT_TREE)
>>>> -#include <ft_build.h>
>>>> -#endif
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT
>>>> +#include <libfdt.h>
>>>> +#include <libfdt_env.h>
>>>> +#include <fdt_support.h>
>>> ditto.
>>>
>>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT */
>>> do the includes need such protection?
>> There are a number of 5200 boards that haven't been migrated to
>> support fdt yet, so I left the protection in.  I suppose it can be
>> removed.
> 
> Ignore this comment; I was on crack.. Of course the protections are
> not needed for the board specific code.  I'll fix.

Could similar protections around ft_board_setup() definition in 
board-specific code be removed as well? I'm thinking about:

#if defined(CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT) && defined(CONFIG_OF_BOARD_SETUP)
void ft_board_setup(void *blob, bd_t *bd)
{
         ft_cpu_setup(blob, bd);
}
#endif /* defined(CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT) && defined(CONFIG_OF_BOARD_SETUP) */


Regards,
Bartlomiej