On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Ley Foon Tan <lftan.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:02 AM, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:19 AM, Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon....@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Change to use CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DM_RESET), so this can work in SPL
>>> build (CONFIG_SPL_DM_RESET) and U-boot build (CONFIG_DM_RESET).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon....@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/reset.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/reset.h b/include/reset.h
>>> index 201bafc..a7bbc1c 100644
>>> --- a/include/reset.h
>>> +++ b/include/reset.h
>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ struct reset_ctl_bulk {
>>> unsigned int count;
>>> };
>>>
>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_DM_RESET
>>> +#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DM_RESET)
>>
>> This seems like it would be more reasonable to squash into the first
>> patch of this series.
> We need to rename SPL_RESET_SUPPORT to SPL_DM_RESET in the first patch.
> Otherwise it will have redefinition of reset-class API compilation
> errors in SPL build if we move this patch to first patch.
I wasn't suggesting to switch the order, I was suggesting to combine
them. Squash.
-Joe
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
