On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:41:50PM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote: > > > On 04/12/2017 02:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:26:21PM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 04/12/2017 02:13 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:37:25PM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote: > >>> > >>>> Now that the davinci I2C driver is converted to driver model enable > >>>> it in 66AK2Gx defconfig > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcoo...@ti.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> configs/k2e_evm_defconfig | 1 + > >>>> configs/k2g_evm_defconfig | 1 + > >>>> configs/k2hk_evm_defconfig | 1 + > >>>> configs/k2l_evm_defconfig | 1 + > >>>> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> Should we be imply/select'ing DM_I2C from the Kconfig file now? > >> > >> Is the goal to reduce the size of the defconfig? Or is it to essentially > >> force all K2 boards (including possible future non TI boards) to use the > >> DM so we can deprecate/remove non DM code in the future? > >> > >> If its for the latter then I don't have an issue doing so. > > > > Well, both. I think 'imply' is a great way to specify default values in > > such a way that making new boards/defconfigs is easy and likely to be > > correct. But also, yes, non-DM will go away at some point. > > > > I'm ok with that. Do you want me to resend this patchset and switch this > patch from enabling DM_I2C via defconfig to KConfig? Or you can just > drop this patch from the patchset and then I can just send a separate > patch enabling DM_I2C via KConfig. > > I'm ok with what ever you prefer.
Do a new 8/8 that does imply instead please, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
