Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] arm: clean up build variables

[Doug Goldstein <cardoe@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel