On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 16:45 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > On 09/26/2013 04:42 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 16:28 -0400, Tom Rini wrote: > >> Cc: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@ti.com> > >> --- > >> drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 1 + > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > >> index 366dee6..bb5b29d 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile > >> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_LOAD) += nand_spl_load.o > >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_ECC) += nand_ecc.o > >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_BASE) += nand_base.o > >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_SPL_NAND_INIT) += nand.o > >> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_NAND) += nand_util.o > > > > Not all NAND SPLs will want this. Define a new CONFIG_SPL_* symbol, or > > perhaps it could just use CONFIG_SPL_NAND_BASE. > > Then they won't get it. Without CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT that all gets > discarded.
Anonymous strings won't. > And talked about before adding CONFIG_SPL_ENV_... and I > didn't want to go down that path. If you feel strongly about not > building the object we can guard this with CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT checks > perhaps? And then we get a bigger mess if something wants nand_util for some other reason... I think the entire way SPL has been structured is a mistake, and it should have been viewed as just multiple U-Boot configs that happen to be automatically built and concatenated together under one user-visible target name. Then, if existing config mechanisms are not fine grained enough, make them finer grained. Bring in kconfig to sort out the dependency mess. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
