On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19:46AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Tom. > > > 2017-01-16 3:29 GMT+09:00 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>: > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 11:19:43AM +0200, Oded Gabbay wrote: > > > >> Using CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() doesn't work in SPL. This patch replaces the only > >> occurrence of CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() in start.S to a regular #if defined(). > >> It also adds "&& !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)" to that #if statement because > >> the spin-table code can't currently work in SPL, and the spin-table file > >> isn't even compiled in SPL. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gab...@gmail.com> > > > > Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! > > > > -- > > Tom > > > > > I had not noticed this patch until it was applied. > > At least, the statement in the git-log > "Using CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() doesn't work in SPL" is wrong. > So, when I saw the git history today, I wondered what was going on. > Then, I found this discussion in the ML. > > It does not matter to either apply or discard this patch > because it is a matter of taste. > > > If you decide to apply it, > the git-log should have been replaced with Oded's comment: > > -------- > You need to go to kconfig.h, read the comments there to > understand how CONFIG_IS_ENABLED is working with SPL, which is more > tiresome than just doing straight #ifdef. It is definitely more > confusing for a newbee. > > In addition, this patch makes the code more consistent, because all > other configuration checks in start.S use a straight #ifdef and not > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED. > ---------- > > > It is too late this time, but please take care of it next time.
Yeah, I should have asked for a v2 with a different commit message. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot