From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1X9WdU-0005aI-9n for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:45:30 +0000 Message-ID: <1406022197.4667.39.camel@weser.hi.pengutronix.de> From: Lucas Stach Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:43:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1406015842-20754-4-git-send-email-holgerschurig@gmail.de> <1406017939.4667.14.camel@weser.hi.pengutronix.de> <1406019042.4667.23.camel@weser.hi.pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sandbox: work around missing of_add_memory_bank() To: Holger Schurig Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" Am Dienstag, den 22.07.2014, 11:09 +0200 schrieb Holger Schurig: > Okay, another post, with less heat. > Yes, please let us keep the heat out of this argument. > I asked you specifically if a proposed solution would be ok. You > didn't answer at all. That proposed solution would still not "work" > (it won't add a memory bank, because AFAIK in sandbox there are no > memory banks at all, it just uses the hosts memory). It might compile, > however and it might be a bit of unneeded code in the "make > ARCH=sandbox sandbox_defconfig && make all" case. > I wasn't able to give any specific advice as I admitted I did not understand the problem yet. I'm aware that there are no memory banks in sandbox, but this doesn't explain a build failure. Your commit message unfortunately didn't explain this either, that's why I asked you to elaborate. Now I actually looked up the code and I think an easier solution would be to allow CONFIG_OFTREE_MEM_GENERIC to be enabled on sandbox. Would this work for you? > The tone of your mail made me think that I actually cannot convince > you, that you don't want this. Your reference to signal-to-noise made > me think this. I got the impression that you're dismissing the concept > of static checking and of code-massaging to make that easier. > Sorry, if it seemed like I wanted to trash your contribution. This wasn't my intention at all. I'm absolutely in favor of static checking but found that clangs scan-build gives at lot of false positives on other projects and I'm not really keen on adding ifdefs just for this use-case. But as I said above there may be another solution. Regards, Lucas -- Pengutronix e.K. | Lucas Stach | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox