-
Wolfgang Denk authored
When planning for more generalization and Makefile cleanup it became obvious that the introduction of a separate CONFIG_MK_ name space for config options that were set through scripting in the Makefile was not a good idea. Originally the idea was to provide a script-free approach to supply configuration options - there was no real need for a separate name space. But when we now convert the existing Makefile entries to make use of this approach, it would mean that we have to touch a large number of board config files and add #ifdef / #define sequences to "convert" from the CONFIG_MK_ to the CONFIG_ name space. It seems much cleaner to get rid of this somewhat arbitrary _MK string now for the few boards that actually use it. Signed-off-by:
Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> Acked-by:
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Wolfgang Denk authoredWhen planning for more generalization and Makefile cleanup it became obvious that the introduction of a separate CONFIG_MK_ name space for config options that were set through scripting in the Makefile was not a good idea. Originally the idea was to provide a script-free approach to supply configuration options - there was no real need for a separate name space. But when we now convert the existing Makefile entries to make use of this approach, it would mean that we have to touch a large number of board config files and add #ifdef / #define sequences to "convert" from the CONFIG_MK_ to the CONFIG_ name space. It seems much cleaner to get rid of this somewhat arbitrary _MK string now for the few boards that actually use it. Signed-off-by:
Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> Acked-by:
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>