On 01/06/2012 01:14 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Ah, OK. But maybe this also means we need to rethink other parts of > SPL too? I'd imagine this isn't a NAND subsystem specific issue we're > running into.
Right, the toplevel config symbol on a directory only makes sense if there's code that will be wanted by all SPLs using that directory -- and given the nature of SPL, that's probably not going to be the case very often. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
