Hi Tom, On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 12:31, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:24:41PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 06:49, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:10:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > In some cases we do not want to enable partition support in SPL. Add an > > > > option to allow this. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > > > disk/Kconfig | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > disk/Makefile | 6 +++--- > > > > drivers/block/blk-uclass.c | 2 +- > > > > 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > I'm not sure this makes sense? I thought when I looked in to this last > > > the only place where we had partition code being linked and not > > > discarded in the case of SPL and no devices that would have partitions > > > on them was one xilinx platform. How do we get to bringing in partition > > > code and not having something that uses it? > > > > The problem is that drivers are not discarded and Takahiro's series > > adds a driver for partitions. > > > > So yes, we were able to get away with this before, but cannot now. > > Things which aren't needed / used need to be discarded. So we might > have use cases for this, yes (I was thinking after I sent that OK, yes, > imx probably tends to not need partition support since we read at raw > offsets, outside from maybe falcon mode using targets). But we > shouldn't generally be now pulling in drivers that aren't functionally > used.
We don't have a way of detecting whether a driver is used, with driver model, so the only option is Kconfig. Does that make sense? Please let me know if there is any disconnect here. Regards, Simon
