Hi Tom, On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 04:15:27PM -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote: > >> This config defined a CONS_INDEX as a config but did not define it in >> any Kconfig, so savedefconfig will delete that entry. Use >> CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS for now until that is added to Kconfig. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> >> --- >> >> configs/am335x_baltos_defconfig | 3 +-- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/configs/am335x_baltos_defconfig >> b/configs/am335x_baltos_defconfig >> index 679b04f..030cb51 100644 >> --- a/configs/am335x_baltos_defconfig >> +++ b/configs/am335x_baltos_defconfig >> @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ >> CONFIG_SPL=y >> CONFIG_SPL_STACK_R=y >> CONFIG_SPL_STACK_R_ADDR=0x82000000 >> -CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS="NAND" >> -CONFIG_CONS_INDEX=1 >> +CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS="CONS_INDEX=1,NAND" >> CONFIG_ARM=y >> CONFIG_TARGET_AM335X_BALTOS=y > > No, something else is wrong. board/vscom/baltos/Kconfig has CONS_INDEX > (like the other am335x boards and yes this needs moving to a better > place).
Any thoughts on what's wrong, then? I'm at FTF this week and won't be debugging it until next week. There was an issue with this board, caused by savedefconfig, which is why I even noticed this board exists now. Maybe whoever added it (Yegor Yefremov) didn't try safedefconfig against the board? If nothing else, at least this makes it consistent with all other boards that specify CONS_INDEX. At least they don't break. -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
