Dear Peter, On 11/07/2010 03:16 PM, Peter Tyser wrote: > You shouldn't need to send the patch using "git send-email". The patch > is greater than U-Boot's mailing list limit (100k) and posting the patch > on a website is perfectly acceptable. Also, it shouldn't be necessary > to split the patch into each separate patch's to address each lib. It'd > be a lot of work on Sebastien's part to do this and not break bisection, > and most maintainers can either ack this patch, or probably don't need > to since its more of a build change, not low-level change that a > maintainer has insight into. >
That makes a lot of sense. > I had a couple of comments though: > - You need to add your "Signed-of-by: " line to the patch. > Okay. As you may have guessed, I am a first-time git user. > - A patch description illustrating why this approach is better than the > current approach would be appreciated. > Will do. > - You shouldn't be making changes to stuff like CONFIG_CMD_NFS in this > patch. Its unrelated, and should be dealt with in another patch. eg > your patches could be: > 1/2: Fix boards with CONFIG_CMD_NFS but !CONFIG_CMD_NET > 2/2: Switch from library archives to partial linking > Sounds good, will do. > I'm guessing lots of boards will have this same issue. I imagine its > due to include/config_cmd_defaults.h, so maybe if you fix the issue in > that one place all the compile issues will go away. > The generic fix is to include the following lines somewhere at the end of the config.h generated in the mkconfig script: #ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NET # undef CONFIG_CMD_NFS #endif These lines should probable be put in a new header file; would config_checks.h be an ok name for it? I suppose there might be other cases where a module (that is included by default) needs to be excluded when one of its dependencies is disabled. Regards, Sebastien Carlier _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot