Hi KR,
thanks for sending a new patch series.
The latest patches have been uploaded for review

Best regards
Alin


On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 1:20 AM Tomek CEDRO <to...@cedro.info> wrote:

> Thank you Kerogit :-)
>
> How about ARCH_HAVE_AVR_FLMAP? This would align with existing
> nomenclature and enable easy filtering / sorting?
>
> Thanks :-)
> Tomek
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:29 PM <kr....@kerogit.eu> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I prepared new version of the series, it's available in branch named
> > avrdx_flmap_v2 (and also attached.)
> >
> > The changes are based on the feedback both from the mailing list and
> > from PR:
> >
> > 1) the #endif alignment was fixed. Checkpatch doesn't complain about
> > assembly files unfortunately and I missed this one as well.
> >
> > 2) since no one was happy with the naming of the new configuration
> > options, they are renamed to what xiaoxiang781216 suggested, ie.
> >
> > - AVR_HAVE_FLMAP to denote chip with memory-mapping support
> > - AVR_HAVE_BOARD_FLMAP to denote board with linker script that responds
> > to configuration values set by the user
> >
> > I did not rename AVR_HAS_RAMPZ for the time being, the patch series
> > would then affect AtMega family as well. Now it only affects AVR DA/DB
> > and I don't want to broaden the scope.
> >
> > As for the HAVE/HAS discussion on GitHub, I think it depends on the view
> > of the speaker - AVR (architecture - singular) has but AVR (chips -
> > plural) have. I am not native speaker though.
> >
> > I have been using AVR_HAS_something for configuration options because it
> > matches AVR_HAS_MEMX_PTR which was present in the code before I started
> > working on it (as opposed to - unless I missed something - no
> > AVR_HAVE_something.) If AVR_HAVE is preferable for new code, I don't
> > have any problem with that but I would rather avoid renaming the
> > existing options to prevent needless (IMO) code churn.
> >
> > Feel free to let me know if there's something else to work out.
>
>
>
> --
> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
>

Reply via email to