Hi, > On 20 Nov 2018, at 16:47, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On 11/20/2018 04:21 PM, Sven Schwermer wrote: >> Hi again, >> >>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 15:14, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de >>> <mailto:ma...@denx.de>> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/20/2018 03:10 PM, Sven Schwermer wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Well, since CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB depends on SPL_DM_USB, I don’t think >>>>>> that’s the case. >>>>> >>>>> Are you _sure_ ? Sorry if I'm being hard, but this affects a lot of >>>>> users, so I have to be cautious. >>>> >>>> I am _not_ sure. That’s why I used the verb “think” ;-) I’m sorry, >>>> but I don’t think I can provide the guarantees you need. How can we >>>> investigate this systematically? >>> >>> I think you can just run make $board_defconfig for all boards (I don't >>> think you need toolchain to do that) and verify that the option didn't >>> get enabled in the resulting .config . >> >> I can confirm that after applying this series, no board has >> CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB=y that does not have CONFIG_DM_USB=y. Why is it >> necessary to check this? Do we not trust the Kconfig dependencies? Or >> did I misunderstand you and that’s what you wanted me to check? > > But DM_USB is DM and USB in U-Boot proper and it doesn't imply that SPL > should have DM or USB support. I want to be sure that some boards don't > suddenly grow DM or USB support in SPL if it wasn't there before.
If anything, this patch series takes away DM_USB from SPL where it was previously active. Since SPL_DM_USB depends on DM_USB, it won’t be enabled where it wasn’t enabled already. Before this series, DM_USB was enabled also in the SPL when enabled in proper. Sorry, I guess I’m missing something fundamental here. I fail to see the possibility of code being included in the SPL that wasn’t included before. Sven _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
