On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 12:05:52AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 02/28/2018 02:09 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:01:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > > > >>Enable networking command only when NET is enabled. > >>And remove selecting NET for CMD_NET > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.si...@xilinx.com> > >>--- > >> > >>Changes in v2: > >>- Check several boards by hand. > >> > >>There is a huge impact on defconfigs because of select NET. > >>But this change makes sense to do but it just needs to be syncup > >>properly. Do we have a tool for this kind of change? > > > >So, I've applied this patch, with a good bit of modification. What I > >wasn't clear about before, sorry, was that we need to make NET default y > >in here too. However, we also have some decent areas of the code that > >use "CONFIG_CMD_NET" when it really means "CONFIG_NET", at least > >conceptually. But in order to make everything work as-is today, and > >leave these fixes to a later point in time (as they are fixes and should > >happen) we change some areas today that reference CONFIG_NET to > >reference CONFIG_CMD_NET. Once net/ gets cleaned up, we can use > >CONFIG_NET without CONFIG_CMD_NET in more area. It's also not quite > >100% size-neutral as the topic_miami* boards were playing some games > >that can't quite be done as they were before, but I believe the end > >result is they can now more easily and thoroughly disable the networking > >stuff that intended to be removed. > > > > > > Hello Tom, > > in spite of you comments above I do not understand why you changed > cmd/bootefi.c to depend on CONFIG_CMD_NET instead of CONFIG_NET.
Because the underlying generic network functionality that efi_loader uses is actually gated under CONFIG_CMD_NET and not CONFIG_NET. This should be corrected, in the long term. > This was not part of Michal's patch. > > I would prefer if changes would be sent to the list for review *before* > being applied. > > As the patch that you applied is not Michal's patch your authorship should > be documented in the git log. Ah, I forgot to add my S-o-B? Oops, that was unintentional. > I cannot see any reason why network support should be disabled in bootefi if > there are no network commands available. In theory and concept, I agree. In current implementation, that is not the case and I would welcome further changes that make the code reflect the general intention. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot