[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH0/2] Re-do the patch for adding DO_SYNC in flash_write_cmd

From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH0/2] Re-do the patch for adding DO_SYNC in flash_write_cmd
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:02:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070210010221.CDDF9353CAA@atlas.denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:59:08 +0100." <1defaf580702091159s2e2fc9e7wf962d4fff0ec985c@mail.gmail.com>

In message <1defaf580702091159s2e2fc9e7wf962d4fff0ec985c@mail.gmail.com> you wrote:
>
> > > Because SYNC is already defined in include/ppc_asm.tmpl for some ppc
> > > based CPUs to use, I use DO_SYNC instead of SYNC for this patch.
> >
> > AFAICT that's a general definition which is not specific to "some ppc
> > based CPUs" only. Rather than redefining it why  not  just  use  this
> > definition? It seems to match our purposes.
> 
> Except that it's not written in C ;-)

You cannot write this in C anyway. C has no concept of such things.
You will always end up withpulling some "asm" tricks.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office:  Kirchenstr. 5,       D-82194 Groebenzell,            Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
... not meant for the weak-at-heart: /^(?=.*one)(?=.*two)/
If you can follow that, you can use it.
          - Randal L. Schwartz in <ukpw67rhl3.fsf@julie.teleport.com>