On 2/7/23 00:38, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 12:36:51AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 2/5/23 23:39, Simon Glass wrote:
This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is
no SPL_EFI_UNICODE_COLLATION_PROTOCOL2 defined in Kconfig
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]>
---
(no changes since v1)
lib/efi_loader/efi_root_node.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_root_node.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_root_node.c
index 21a014d7c21..108c14b95bd 100644
--- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_root_node.c
+++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_root_node.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_root_node_register(void)
&efi_guid_dt_fixup_protocol,
&efi_dt_fixup_prot,
#endif
-#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_UNICODE_COLLATION_PROTOCOL2)
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_UNICODE_COLLATION_PROTOCOL2)
I never received this patch in my inbox. Expect series with more than 50
mails not even to be copied to the spam folder. They are outright rejected
by my mail provider.
I cannot see any problem solved by this patch. Why did you send it?
You should look in to setting up lei to fetch the list then, as this is
well explained in the cover letter.
lei = circle of flowers is what I find in a dictionary. Do I miss an
idiomatic expression?
The cover letter describes an observation but does not point out any
problem relating to this observation.
We don't have a CONFIG_SPL_EFI_LOADER. In vsnprintf_internal() we use
CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_LOADER). The code inside the #if condition is not
compiled in SPL. This is the desired behavior.
How is moveconfig meant to accept this?
Is anything wrong about this use of CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_LOADER)?
What is the reasoning behind wanting to use CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() only if
an SPL config option exists?
Where is the documentation change describing that CONFIG_IS_ENABLED()
should only be used if an SPL config option exists?
Best regards
Heinrich
