Dear Scott Wood, In message <[email protected]> you wrote: > > How about having the board's config.mk do something like: > > ifdef CONFIG_NAND_SPL > TEXT_BASE = ... > endif
Assuming we want to go for Kconfig or similar, I would like to keep such logic out of the config.mk files (at least not add more than there already is). > Well, that addresses the line length argument, at the cost of complexity > and syntax obscurity. But I changing TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE > is something we probably want to do anyway. If we ever switch to > kconfig, and we want the text base to be part of that, it will have to > start with CONFIG_. Good point. > Even if we don't change TEXT_BASE now, we don't want to encourage > people to add any new symbols in the second category. If we do add > some hack to the boards.cfg syntax for this, IMHO it ought to be just > for TEXT_BASE and not a generalized symbol setter. Agreed. > Are we dropping the MK_ that mkconfig currently adds, BTW? Some > examples in the introductory text use it and some don't. Yes, these get dropped. All we want todo is provide a different way to set configuration options, and a separate name space adds more problems than benefits. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong. -- Chris Torek _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
