[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arm: clean up build variables
On 1/27/16 9:24 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 09:11 -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote: >> On 1/27/16 9:05 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 07:44 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 27.01.16 at 15:30, <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 1/25/16 5:27 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 15:47 -0600, Doug Goldstein wrote: >>>>>>> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ ALL_OBJS := $(TARGET_SUBARCH)/head.o >>>>>>> $(ALL_OBJS) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $(TARGET): $(TARGET)-syms $(TARGET).axf >>>>>>> $(OBJCOPY) -O binary -S $< $@ >>>>>>> -ifeq (arm64,$(XEN_TARGET_ARCH)) >>>>>>> +ifdef CONFIG_ARM_64 >>>>>> >>>>>> The old way looks to be the prevailing normal form. I don't >>>>>> especially >>>>>> object to the change but things ought to remain consistent. >>>>> >>>>> Which part? Using arm32/arm64? Or having the if blocks rather than >>>>> var-$(CONFIG_THING) ? >>>>> >>>>> My goal here is consistency and that was to standardize on the form >>>>> of >>>>> var-$(CONFIG_THING) across the board. >>>> >>>> But there's no var-$(CONFIG_THING) in the code above. >>> >>> Indeed, I was referring to the change from: >>> >>> -ifeq (arm64,$(XEN_TARGET_ARCH)) >>> >>> to >>> >>> +ifdef CONFIG_ARM_64 >>> >>> While: >>> >>> ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM_64),y) >>> >>> is the more prevalent style. >>> >>> Ian. >>> >> >> Oh sure. We can do that. Would you like me to send a v2 or are you >> comfortable squashing that into the patch? > > I may as well just do it, thanks. > > I'll change my style going forward to use that form as well. -- Doug Goldstein Attachment:
signature.asc _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |