On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 02:13:32AM +0200, Jonas Karlman wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 2024-09-27 00:35, Simon Glass wrote:
Now that SPL means SPL (only) and is not defined for TPL, simplify some checks for SPL.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
arch/arm/include/asm/arch-rockchip/boot0.h | 3 +-- arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3399/rk3399.c | 2 +- drivers/clk/rockchip/clk_rk3368.c | 8 ++++---- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3288.c | 10 +++++----- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3399.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rv1126.c | 9 +++------ 6 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-rockchip/boot0.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-rockchip/boot0.h index edb2a31c348..918f0495fa0 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-rockchip/boot0.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-rockchip/boot0.h @@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ _start: ARM_VECTORS #endif
-#if !defined(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) && defined(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD) && \
- (CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SPL_RESERVE_IRAM > 0)
+#if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) && (CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SPL_RESERVE_IRAM > 0)
This was changed from SPL to XPL just to be changed back to SPL in this patch?, such change probably just clutter git blame, was the change to use XPL really necessary in the first place?
Because SPL_BUILD was used together with !TPL_BUILD it is pretty obvious that SPL_BUILD did not need to change to XPL_BUILD in the first place.
This comment applies more globally to the series too. Once you have the knowledge of when "SPL_BUILD is just building for SPL" reworking things in light of that will make an easier to review series I believe.