From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:05:03 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 16/16] of: clean up OF_CONTROL ifdef conditionals In-Reply-To: References: <1437899226-14925-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <1437899226-14925-17-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> <20150726183846.GA9041@amd> Message-ID: <20150727070503.GA32171@amd> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon 2015-07-27 10:33:51, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > > 2015-07-27 3:38 GMT+09:00 Pavel Machek : > > Hi! > > > >> We have flipped CONFIG_SPL_DISABLE_OF_CONTROL. We have cleansing > >> devices, $(SPL_) and CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(), so we are ready to clear > >> away the ugly logic in include/fdtdec.h: > >> > >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL > >> # if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) && !defined(SPL_OF_CONTROL) > >> # define OF_CONTROL 0 > >> # else > >> # define OF_CONTROL 1 > >> # endif > >> #else > >> # define OF_CONTROL 0 > >> #endif > >> > >> Now CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) is the substitute. It refers to > >> CONFIG_OF_CONTROL for U-boot proper and CONFIG_SPL_OF_CONTROL for > >> SPL. > > > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is a bit too verbose. Could we get something > > shorter, like ENABLED()? > > The prefix "CONFIG_" is important because this must be > searched by scripts/basic/fixdep.c > > We are familiar with IS_ENABLED() which originates in Linux, > so a new build-context-depending macro, CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is > reasonable naming, I believe. > > Besides, > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_CONTROL) - before > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) - after What about CONFIG_EN(OF_CONTROL), then? I don't think confusion is possible... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html