On Mon, 19 Sep 2022 11:14:10 +0200 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Sascha! > Hi Antony, > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:07:34PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 10:01:52 +0200 > > Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > One side effect is that this gets even less readable. > > > > Yes, you are right :) > > > > > Another one would be that two dts filenames which only differ in the > > > usage of '.' and '_' would result in the same define, but I think that > > > case is negligible as this define is unused in barebox itself. It could > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > be used by external dts fragments passed in via CONFIG_EXTERNAL_DTS_FRAGMENTS. > > > > > > Other than that, what side effects are you afraid of? > > > > I have an idea that someone relies on these *_dts macros. > > > > Now I see (as you have noted above) that there is no macro users in mainline source tree: > > Could you create a formal patch from this? I'll a formal patch in a few days. -- Best regards, Antony Pavlov
