[U-Boot] CONFIG_SPL vs CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS
Hi guys,
Why is required to add "SPL" to CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS, when we have also CONFIG_SPL? I found the following mx6 boards are doing it:
configs/mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig configs/cm_fx6_defconfig configs/mx6cuboxi_spl_defconfig
Thanks and regards, Nikolay
Hi Nikolay,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov picmaster@mail.bg wrote:
Hi guys,
Why is required to add "SPL" to CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS, when we have also CONFIG_SPL? I found the following mx6 boards are doing it:
configs/mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig
Yes, not needed. I will remove it.
configs/cm_fx6_defconfig configs/mx6cuboxi_spl_defconfig
I remove the 'SPL' in v2.
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
Hi Fabio,
On 04/17/2015 07:50 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Nikolay,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov picmaster@mail.bg wrote:
Hi guys,
Why is required to add "SPL" to CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS, when we have also CONFIG_SPL? I found the following mx6 boards are doing it:
configs/mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig
Yes, not needed. I will remove it.
configs/cm_fx6_defconfig configs/mx6cuboxi_spl_defconfig
I remove the 'SPL' in v2.
Sorry if you felt like this, but I wasn't pointing at you specifically.
I'm just not sure what's the proper way to configure SPL support these days, after so many updates to the SPL code & Kconfig migration.
Regards, Nikolay
Hi Nikolay,
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Nikolay Dimitrov picmaster@mail.bg wrote:
Sorry if you felt like this, but I wasn't pointing at you specifically.
No problem. Just to clarify: during the hummingboard patch submission Tom Rini suggested me to remove the 'SPL'.
So I did it (among other things) and sent a v2.
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
participants (2)
-
Fabio Estevam -
Nikolay Dimitrov