On 01/05/2012 06:41 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: >> Whatever the set of things is that you want to pull in for these SPLs, >> it needs to be a separate config option from the one that enables >> libnand.o to be included, so that other SPLs can pull in smaller NAND >> implementations. >> >> Is there any reason to keep defines like CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT (versus >> LIBS-y += drivers/mtd/nand/libnand.o), if everything within that >> directory needs a separate config symbol to enable it inside an SPL >> (just like a normal build)? > > I think you've got it backwards. What CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT enables > today is more bloated than required as our 'magic' isn't working.
I realize this isn't the case today -- but it's where we need to go, since gc-sections doesn't do the job. I was saying that I think we can get rid of CONFIG_SPL_NAND_SUPPORT once we change to a model where every bit of code within the directory needs some other config symbol to pull it in. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
