On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:36:31AM +0000, B, Ravi wrote: > Tom > > >>> > >>> Yes you are correct. > >>> But what is happening here is, the CONFIG_DFU_<MMC/NAND/SF/TFTP> selected > >>> through Kconfig/Menuconfig is applicable for both SPL and U-Boot. > >>> Hence CONFIG_DFU_MMC/NA > >ND/SF gets compiled for SPL as well, which needs run_command(). Actually > >CONFIG_DFU_MMC/NAND/etc is not scoped for SPL-DFU. > >>> As we have aligned, not to increase the SPL size, user shall use SPL-DFU > >>> feature to boot to u-boot, then utilize the full featured DFU to flash > >>> MMC/NAND/SF. > >>> > >>> I get undefined reference to common function run_command(), > >>> "dfu_fill_entitiy_<mmc/nand/sf>" in driver/dfu/dfu.c. > >>> The dfu.c is common for both SPL-DFU and U-boot. > > >>OK. I think we need to introduce SPL_DFU_xxx Kconfig options, and use > >>CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DFU_xxx) so that we will get things enabled/disabled (and > >>discarded) as needed. > > >Ok, will do. > > Correct me if I am wrong, I need understand if we introduce say > SPL_DFU_MMC Kconfig options, then whether need to support DFU_MMC in > SPL ? > Again this will increase the SPL-size, and also DFU_MMC uses > run_command() again, there is dependency of cli.c, hush etc.
SPL_DFU_MMC will only increase the size of SPL if it's enabled. Being able to switch to testing with CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DFU_xxx) means that we'll be able to keep the space savings while also not making various parts of the code harder to read with more #ifdef tests. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
