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,
Quoted 6 lines · Nikolay Dimitrov
Hi guys,
Why is required to add "SPL" to
CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS, when we have alsoCONFIG_SPL? I found the following mx6 boards are doing it:configs/mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig
Yes, not needed. I will remove it.
Quoted 2 lines
configs/cm_fx6_defconfig
configs/mx6cuboxi_spl_defconfig
I remove the 'SPL' in v2.
Regards,
Fabio Estevam
Hi Fabio,
Quoted 8 lines · Fabio Estevam
Hi Nikolay,
Quoted 5 lines · Nikolay Dimitrov
Hi guys,
Why is required to add "SPL" to
CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS, when we have alsoCONFIG_SPL? I found the following mx6 boards are doing it:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
configs/mx6sabresd_spl_defconfig
Yes, not needed. I will remove it.
Quoted 2 lines
configs/cm_fx6_defconfig
configs/mx6cuboxi_spl_defconfigI 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,
Quoted 1 line · Nikolay Dimitrov
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