Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

treewide: convert bd_t to struct bd_info by coccinelle

The Linux coding style guide (Documentation/process/coding-style.rst)
clearly says:

It's a **mistake** to use typedef for structures and pointers.

Besides, using typedef for structures is annoying when you try to make
headers self-contained.

Let's say you have the following function declaration in a header:

void foo(bd_t *bd);

This is not self-contained since bd_t is not defined.

To tell the compiler what 'bd_t' is, you need to include <asm/u-boot.h>

#include <asm/u-boot.h>
void foo(bd_t *bd);

Then, the include direcective pulls in more bloat needlessly.

If you use 'struct bd_info' instead, it is enough to put a forward
declaration as follows:

struct bd_info;
void foo(struct bd_info *bd);

Right, typedef'ing bd_t is a mistake.

I used coccinelle to generate this commit.

The semantic patch that makes this change is as follows:

<smpl>
@@
typedef bd_t;
@@
-bd_t
+struct bd_info
</smpl>

Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>

Rename CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_TEXT_BASE

The current name is inconsistent with SPL which uses CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE
and this makes it imposible to use CONFIG_VAL().

Rename it to resolve this problem.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>