[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] fix compilation problem for mpc8349itx CFG_RAMBOOT

[Nikita V. Youshchenko <yoush@debian.org>]

> Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > Current include/configs/MPC8349ITX.h does contain some support for
> > building image that will be started from memory (without putting in
> > into flash). It could be triggered by building with TEXT_BASE set to a
> > low value.
>
> Well that's ironic.  I was just about to remove support for ramboot
> altogether from all 8xxx boards.
>
> I guess I won't be doing that.  However, I have to NACK your patch for
> one reason: 

In my particular scenario I needed ramboot because I work with the board 
remotely and don't have jtag access; so if something will go whong while 
reflashing, the board will be dead.

However, I need updated u-boot to boot kernels that require flat device 
tree.

I guess I'm not alone in such a situation. So please don't remove ramboot 
support.


> > -#define CONFIG_COMMANDS                (CONFIG_CMD_DFL | \
> > +#ifdef CFG_NO_FLASH
> > +#define CONFIG_COMMANDS_DEFAULT (CONFIG_CMD_DFL & ~(CFG_CMD_FLASH | \
> > +                                                   CFG_CMD_IMLS))
> > +#else
> > +#define CONFIG_COMMANDS_DEFAULT CONFIG_CMD_DFL
> > +#endif
>
> Please don't put CONFIG_COMMANDS inside an #ifdef block.  Instead,
> please follow the example of CONFIG_COMMANDS_CF.

Could you please explain what you mean?

I don't put CONFIG_COMMANDS under #ifdef.
I put another macro, CONFIG_COMMANDS_DEFAULT, under ifdef.
And then use it in unconditional CONFIG_COMMANDS definition.
Looks similar to CONFIG_COMMANDS_CF and others.
The difference from CONFIG_COMMANDS_CF is that I have to exclude bits from 
CONFIG_CMD_DFL, not add more commands.

Nikita