On 8/30/21 12:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/29/21 9:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 09:24:46PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/29/21 8:02 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 06:26:23PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/15/21 9:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:13:02PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
The CONFIG_LMB_*_REGIONS are defined only if CONFIG_LMB is enabled,
protect access to those two config options to avoid undefined macro
errors.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
Cc: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
---
include/lmb.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/lmb.h b/include/lmb.h
index 3c4afdf9f0..fa1474a360 100644
--- a/include/lmb.h
+++ b/include/lmb.h
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct lmb_property {
struct lmb_region {
unsigned long cnt;
unsigned long max;
-#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
This doesn't make sense to me, still. You cannot enable
CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS without CONFIG_LMB as the former depends on
the latter in Kconfig.
struct lmb_property region[CONFIG_LMB_MAX_REGIONS];
#else
struct lmb_property *region;
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct lmb_region {
struct lmb {
struct lmb_region memory;
struct lmb_region reserved;
-#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
struct lmb_property memory_regions[CONFIG_LMB_MEMORY_REGIONS];
struct lmb_property reserved_regions[CONFIG_LMB_RESERVED_REGIONS];
#endif
We shouldn't need this at all. LMB and LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS are both in
Kconfig and have the dependencies expressed that way.
However, CONFIG_LMB_MEMORY_REGIONS and CONFIG_LMB_RESERVED_REGIONS may be
undefined if CONFIG_LMB and !CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS . They are four
different symbols.
I'm still not seeing it, sorry. Is there some case where we're trying
to access a struct lmb without CONFIG_LMB enabled?
See build failure
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-sh/-/jobs/315331
Ah, progress. Drop <lmb.h> from <image.h> since we already have a
forward declaration of struct lmb? But it's not failing without this
series too, so what's changing?
See 01/14 in this series.
Ah, so drop 1/14 then.
Why ? That patch is correct.
