On 10/18/23 09:51, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 10/17/23 00:27, Simon Glass wrote:
This code is normally compiled for sifive, but sandbox can also compile it. We should not use UNIT_TEST as a synonym for SANDBOX, since it is possible to disable UNIT_TEST for sandbox.
Drop the condition since it isn't needed.
This is not what the patch does. It introduces another condition.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Suggested-by: Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com
Changes in v3:
- Just drop the condition instead
include/k210/pll.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/k210/pll.h b/include/k210/pll.h index fd16a89cb203..6dd60b2eb4fc 100644 --- a/include/k210/pll.h +++ b/include/k210/pll.h @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ struct k210_pll_config { u8 od; };
-#ifdef CONFIG_UNIT_TEST +#ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX
We should be able to compile with and without unit tests on the MAIX boards. Why should CONFIG_SANDBOX have any relevance here?
Why don't we make k210_pll_calc_config() non-static in all cases?
U-Boot is smaller when it is static. But the forward declaration can be made unconditionally, as long as it is unused.
--Sean