Simon Kallweit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Thinking about it after having done the checkin, I'm not entirely > >> happy with the naming of CYGHWR_HAL_STM32_BD_UNPROTECT() and > >> hal_stm32_bd_unprotect(). The un... parts could be a little > >> confusing > >> and the sense of things seems wrong. I would be happier with > >> CYGHWR_HAL_STM32_BD_PROTECT() and hal_stm32_bd_protect() with a > >> matching inversion of the meaning of the argument. It is probably not > >> worth worrying about immediately, but is something that might need to > >> change in the future. > >> > > > > I see your point, I'll change that tomorrow. > > Here is the patch to change CYGHWR_HAL_STM32_BD_UNPROTECT() to > CYGHWR_HAL_STM32_BD_PROTECT(). I guess this is better done early than > later.
Now checked in. -- Nick Garnett eCos Kernel Architect eCosCentric Limited http://www.eCosCentric.com The eCos experts Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 1223 245571 Registered in England and Wales: Reg No: 4422071
