From: Ian Campbell Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:30:12 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/6] sunxi: Turn MMC_SUNXI_SLOT_EXTRA into a proper Kconfig option In-Reply-To: <54315D08.1090709@redhat.com> References: <1412348759-4599-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1412348759-4599-4-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1412411528.17796.58.camel@hellion.org.uk> <54315D08.1090709@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1412584212.12695.46.camel@hellion.org.uk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 17:00 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/04/2014 10:32 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 17:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Note we also drop the SPL check for initializing the 2nd mmc slot, the SPL > >> check is not necessary with Kconfig, because only options explicitly marked > >> as also being for the SPL get set during SPL builds. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede > > > > If we come across a system with e.g. 3 slots then this is just going to > > get more complex, isn't it? Shall we bite the bullet now and got > > straight to a bool option per potential slot? > > I think that the current solution is somewhat more KISS then doing a bool > per slot. So lets wait with moving to a bool per mmc controller, until such > a hypothetical board with 3 mmc slots actually shows up, and keep what we've > for now. That's OK so long as we don't try to care about "forwards compatibility" for .config files. I have a feeling that we don't in general, I expect very few people are using oldconfig as opposed to rerunning defconfig, since there is very little opportunity to tweak things once you have the defconfig for a board. Ian.