On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 22:33 -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:13:42AM +0000, Martyn Welch wrote:
Currently CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND is checked regardless of the type of build being performed, but this doesn't seem to be needed in SPL builds.
Don't check this configuration option for SPL builds.
Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch martyn.welch@collabora.com
env/nand.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/env/nand.c b/env/nand.c index 29eda66fad..d0b95f483d 100644 --- a/env/nand.c +++ b/env/nand.c @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ #if defined(CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV) && defined(CONFIG_CMD_NAND) && \ !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) #define CMD_SAVEENV -#elif defined(CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND) +#elif defined(CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND) && !defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) #error CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND must have CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV & CONFIG_CMD_NAND #endif
I'm confused. If we have redundant env, and we have env in nand, we need to know. That said, I guess this is just a sanity check for build time, and until we have ENV_OFFSET_REDUND (and others) move to Kconfig we can't also delete those #error lines. Am I at least right about where/how you hit this problem? Thanks!
We are booting the board with an SPL. We can either do this from NAND, SDCard or via USB with the boot ROM loader. The boot ROM in the am335x can use RNDIS via the USB and thus we use gadget eth from the SPL to load the main U-Boot image. To enable CONFIG_SPL_ETH_SUPPORT, we must enable CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT as the environment is used by the eth support, but we don't actually need to have environment variables saved in the SPL environment.
We do however have environment variables saved in the main U-Boot image and enable CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET_REDUND (we are storing in raw NAND) and my .config shows that both CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV and CONFIG_CMD_NAND are set, they just don't seem to be visible when building the SPL. This didn't seem overly odd so haven't looked into why, my assumption was that the above combination wasn't widely used and thus the need to avoid the check when building the SPL in this instance hadn't been anticipated.
Am I just looking at this from the wrong angle?
Martyn