From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 18:03:28 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/3] imx: Use a clear identification of an
	unidentified CPU type
In-Reply-To: <CAP9ODKoYLWcO-5W9xUcEnvtkbgJNXqOTkE7dAXHiPvXVVyuLxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1339937889-15538-1-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br>
	<4FDDFB28.2090303@denx.de>
	<CAP9ODKoYLWcO-5W9xUcEnvtkbgJNXqOTkE7dAXHiPvXVVyuLxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201206171803.28260.marex@denx.de>
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

Dear Otavio Salvador,

> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote:
> >> -             return "unknown";
> >> +             return "<unidentified>";
> > 
> > Taste ist taste... but why <unidentified> is better that unknown ?
> 
> For me it gives a visual indication that we didn't meant to support a
> i.MXunknown processor ;-) i.MX<unidentified> make it easy to spot
> this.
> 
> But really, I don't mind it being included or not. I did it because
> Marek has comment about it when looking at my initial mx23 patches.

And I like it more, it looks less like a typo.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut