Hi Tom,
On Fri, 30 May 2014 13:24:08 -0400
Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:32:50PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I've posted two sets of Kconfig RFC patches: "RFCv2a" and "RFCv2b"
>
> These are all certainly some thought experiments worth pursuing, so
> thanks
Hi Simon,
>
> I have been thinking about this a lot, but it isn't 100% clear to me.
>
> While I agree that duplicating the CONFIGs is bad, in fact the
> opposite of what I was getting at, I do feel that things like
> CONFIG_TEGRA20 need to be set in one place. We don't want the SPL/TPL
> config
Hi Masahiro,
On 27 May 2014 01:32, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've posted two sets of Kconfig RFC patches: "RFCv2a" and "RFCv2b"
>
> The difference from v1 is that
> Full U-boot image, SPL and TPL share a single defconfig
> and "make config" is done in one-shot.
>
> This approach dates bac
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:32:50PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I've posted two sets of Kconfig RFC patches: "RFCv2a" and "RFCv2b"
These are all certainly some thought experiments worth pursuing, so
thanks for taking the time.
>
> The difference from v1 is that
> Full U-boot image
Hi.
I've posted two sets of Kconfig RFC patches: "RFCv2a" and "RFCv2b"
The difference from v1 is that
Full U-boot image, SPL and TPL share a single defconfig
and "make config" is done in one-shot.
This approach dates back to Simon's following comments:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:15:30 -0700
Simon
5 matches
Mail list logo