[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] net: Sort Makefile labels

[Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>]

Dear Wolfgang,

> Dear Michal Simek,
> 
> In message <49913792.9060008@monstr.eu> you wrote:
>>>>>  COBJS-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_3C589) += 3c589.o
>>>>> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_PPC4xx_EMAC) += 4xx_enet.o
>>>>>  COBJS-$(CONFIG_DRIVER_AX88180) += ax88180.o
>>>>>     
>>>> What makes you think that CONFIG_PPC4xx_EMAC has a good place between
>>>> CONFIG_DRIVER_3C589 and CONFIG_DRIVER_AX88180?
>> From my point of view make me more sense to rename 4xx_enec.c file to correspond
>> with driver name. I mean if the config is CONFIG_PPC4xx_EMAC the filename should
>> be ppc4xx_emac.c or in second case CONFIG_4XX_ENET for current 4xx_enet.c file.
>> From these two choices I like the first one.
> 
> Well, that's IMO for the PPC4xx custodian to decide.
> 
> Stefan, what do you think?
> 
>> I would like to describe what happen. I sent to mailing list two patches. One
>> with Makefile sort and second with LL_TEMAC. First patch just sort some labels
>> in drivers/net/Makefile. Wolfgang sent that he don't like it and he reject this
>> patch. I haven't wanted to sort any Makefile labels I just wanted to add
>> LL_TEMAC driver. Makefile sort was not my point.
> 
> I'm aware of this. But this is how contributing to U-Boot works : you
> just want to add a tiny  piece  of  code  here,  and  you  will  find
> yourself  involved  in some bigger cleanup all over the place. That's
> what happens to me all day, and to many others,  so  please  help  to
> carry that burdon.  Thanks.

Yes I know that's why I sent sort Makefile patch in that pack.

Regards,
Michal


> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
> 


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854