On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:24:41PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 06:49, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:10:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > In some cases we do not want to enable partition support in SPL. Add an > > > option to allow this. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > > > > disk/Kconfig | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > disk/Makefile | 6 +++--- > > > drivers/block/blk-uclass.c | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > I'm not sure this makes sense? I thought when I looked in to this last > > the only place where we had partition code being linked and not > > discarded in the case of SPL and no devices that would have partitions > > on them was one xilinx platform. How do we get to bringing in partition > > code and not having something that uses it? > > The problem is that drivers are not discarded and Takahiro's series > adds a driver for partitions. > > So yes, we were able to get away with this before, but cannot now.
Things which aren't needed / used need to be discarded. So we might have use cases for this, yes (I was thinking after I sent that OK, yes, imx probably tends to not need partition support since we read at raw offsets, outside from maybe falcon mode using targets). But we shouldn't generally be now pulling in drivers that aren't functionally used. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
