From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Albert ARIBAUD Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:22:05 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC 0/3] ARM Relocation Config Cleanup In-Reply-To: <20101029101319.A1044134F44@gemini.denx.de> References: <1288293126-24949-1-git-send-email-wd@denx.de> <4CC9E2A7.3080506@emk-elektronik.de> <20101029080716.91ED4134F44@gemini.denx.de> <4CCA87B9.5090203@emk-elektronik.de> <20101029101319.A1044134F44@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4CCAAE5D.3040000@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Le 29/10/2010 12:13, Wolfgang Denk a ?crit : > Dear Reinhard Meyer, > > In message<4CCA87B9.5090203@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote: >> Dear Wolfgang Denk, >>> Dear Reinhard Meyer, >>> >>> In message<4CC9E2A7.3080506@emk-elektronik.de> you wrote: >>>>> Replace CONFIG_RELOC_FIXUP_WORKS by CONFIG_BROKEN_RELOC_FIXUP >>>> Seems a slight misnomer to me, and a bit hides what it really does. What about >>>> CONFIG_NEEDS_DATA_RELOC_FIXUP ? >>> >>> Thinking about that, I feel the name is too long. And eventually not >>> clear enough either. >>> >>> How about CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC ? >> OK, since I had that in mind, too. I skipped it however since "manual" for me >> smells like really some extra manual labour. >> But I guess any full descriptive term would be too long. > > Yes, that's what I think too. > > OK, renamed into CONFIG_NEEDS_MANUAL_RELOC. Wait... This is the other way around, isn't it? When a board defines CONFIG_RELOC_FIXUP_WORKS, it means "no need to do manual fixups", I think. Amicalement, -- Albert.