On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 09:25:22AM +0200, Eugen Hristev wrote: > On 2/9/23 19:36, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 03:36:17PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is > > > no SPL_ATMEL_PIO4 defined in Kconfig > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > > > > (no changes since v1) > > > > > > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c > > > b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c > > > index 50e3dd449ab..84b398619c4 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91-pio4.c > > > @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static int atmel_pinctrl_bind(struct udevice *dev) > > > ofnode node = dev_ofnode(dev); > > > struct atmel_pinctrl_data *priv = (struct atmel_pinctrl_data > > > *)dev_get_driver_data(dev); > > > - if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(ATMEL_PIO4)) > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ATMEL_PIO4)) > > > return 0; > > > /* Obtain a handle to the GPIO driver */ > > > > This grows SPL in a number of platforms, so adding in Eugen to see if we > > really do want to omit this here in SPL on platforms that otherwise set > > the symbol. > > > > Hi Simon, Tom, > > The growth is because the compiler will now include in SPL all the code > below the check ? The respective code is not conditionally compiled, so I am > trying to see why the growth. The solution would be to guard all the below > code in the function (or the whole bind itself) by #ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > ?
Correct, Simon's change causes it to be included in SPL and not optimized out. My question is, are we intentionally omitting the code here, in that case? Or should we be including it in SPL and Simon's change of macro is correct. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
