Okay, another post, with less heat. 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. 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. I don't need to contribute to barebox. My barebox is running for my board, I can stop now. I don't need to barebox to promote myself, e.g. as a freelancer. Yet I also don't want to contribute crap to barebox. So if my attempts are not going any further, and specific question if XYZ would be ok and instead I get junk about signal-to-noise back, then I simply aren't inclined to promote things further. Feel yourself now utterly unconvinced :-) _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
