Le 29/10/2010 12:13, Wolfgang Denk a écrit : > Dear Reinhard Meyer, > > In message<[email protected]> you wrote: >> Dear Wolfgang Denk, >>> Dear Reinhard Meyer, >>> >>> In message<[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
