On 08/19/2013 12:54 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:47:53PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 16:14 +0800, ying.zh...@freescale.com wrote: >>> From: Ying Zhang <b40...@freescale.com> >> >> No. You added one line AFAICT. Preserve the original author here. > > Indeed. >
Do we need Ying to send a new version? We can reset the author to Joe when applying this patch. >>> SPL defines CONFIG_SPL_BUILD but this does not percolate to the autoconf.mk >>> Makefile. >>> As a result the build breaks when CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is used in the >>> board-specific include >>> header file. With this, there is a possibility of having a CONFIG option >>> defined in the >>> header file but not defined in the Makefile causing all kinds of build >>> failure and problems. >>> >>> It also messes things for up, for example, when one might want to undefine >>> options to >>> keep the SPL small and doesn't want to be stuck with the CONFIG options >>> used for U-boot. >>> Lastly, this also avoids defining special CONFIG_SPL_ variables for cases >>> where some >>> options are required in U-boot but not in SPL. >>> >>> We add a spl-autoconf.mk rule that is generated for SPL with the >>> CONFIG_SPL_BUILD flag >>> and conditionally include it for SPL builds. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Joel A Fernandes <joelag...@ti.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Ying Zhang <b40...@freescale.com> >>> --- >>> Change from v4: >>> - No change. >>> Change from v3: >>> - No change. >> >> Surely there was *some* change or you wouldn't have reposted... > > v4 was adding Joel's S-o-b line back to the changelog. > I tried to run MAKEALL for arm and powerpc. Powerpc all passed but I am having errors for arm, before applying this patch. I am using Linaro's gcc 4.8.2 for arm. Should I use a different toolchain? I am not used to work on arm platforms. York _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
