On 11/18/2018 08:08 PM, Sven Schwermer wrote: > Hi! > >>> -ifdef CONFIG_CMD_USB >>> +ifdef CONFIG_USB >> >> Shouldn't this be a separate change ? > > Do you mean a separate patch set or its own patch? I was actually not > 100% sure about this one but ran into link problems with the status quo. > It seemed odd that this code would depend on the USB command. Maybe you > can elaborate a little?
I think this particular change should be in a separate patch . The code should not depend on CMD_USB I think. >>> obj-y += usb.o usb_hub.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_USB_STORAGE) += usb_storage.o >>> endif >>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/Kconfig >>> index 4fbe172e05..03746dd12f 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/usb/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/usb/Kconfig >>> @@ -47,6 +47,11 @@ config DM_USB >>> declared with the U_BOOT_USB_DEVICE() macro and will be >>> automatically probed when found on the bus. >>> >>> +config SPL_DM_USB >> >> I think this should be introduced last, after all the core changes, >> since this patch won't compile cleanly on it's own, will it ? > > Not sure, I understand. Just introducing a new Kconfig variable won’t > change the “compilibility” of existing code?! No, but you're not "just introducing" new Kconfig option, you are also using it. And the general rule of thumb is, do preparatory changes first and introduce new features afterward. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
