Hi Peng, On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 5:02 AM Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> wrote: > > Add Kconfig entry for i.MX8MM > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > --- > drivers/clk/Kconfig | 4 ++-- > drivers/clk/imx/Kconfig | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/Kconfig > index a3f0171b45..fce595b4b3 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/clk/Kconfig > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ config CLK_BOSTON > > config SPL_CLK_CCF > bool "SPL Common Clock Framework [CCF] support " > - depends on SPL_CLK_IMX6Q > + depends on SPL_CLK_IMX6Q || ARCH_IMX8M
I am wondering why this depends on i.MX. Shouldn't it be SoC agnostic? > help > Enable this option if you want to (re-)use the Linux kernel's Common > Clock Framework [CCF] code in U-Boot's SPL. > @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ config SPL_CLK_COMPOSITE_CCF > > config CLK_CCF > bool "Common Clock Framework [CCF] support " > - depends on CLK_IMX6Q || SANDBOX_CLK_CCF > + depends on CLK_IMX6Q || ARCH_IMX8M || SANDBOX_CLK_CCF Same here. It doesn't look like a good idea to keep expanding this Kconfig every time a new SoC wants to use the CCF. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot