Re: [coreboot] RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

[Nico Huber]

On 08.02.2016 12:10, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
> 2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi :
> > during the review of some commits that are in the process of being
> > upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to
> > define their own TRUE/FALSE defines (sometimes prefixed to), and I
> > have seen a bunch of #define BIT{0-31} ..., too, because that seems to
> > be the house rules in some firmware communities.
>
> Seems like for the BIT defines, all variants are popular. Any
> objection with moving them to src/include instead of having various
> copies across the tree?

How about something like src/include/please_dont_use.h ?

Nico

RFC: coding style: "standard" defines

[ron minnich]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 9:46 AM Nico Huber  wrote:
> On 08.02.2016 12:10, Patrick Georgi via coreboot wrote:
> > 2016-02-04 10:35 GMT+01:00 Patrick Georgi :
> > > during the review of some commits that are in the process of being
> > > upstreamed from Chrome OS, people noticed that chipset drivers like to
> > > define their own TRUE/FALSE defines (sometimes prefixed to), and I
> > > have seen a bunch of #define BIT{0-31} ..., too, because that seems to
> > > be the house rules in some firmware communities.
> >
> > Seems like for the BIT defines, all variants are popular. Any
> > objection with moving them to src/include instead of having various
> > copies across the tree?
>
> How about something like src/include/please_dont_use.h ?

I don't know about that but I'd have no objection to a comment in the file
itself that these are vile constructs.

ron