[U-Boot] [PATCH 7/7] Move defaults from config_cmd_default.h to Kconfig
Joe Hershberger
joe.hershberger at gmail.com
Thu Jun 25 17:50:21 CEST 2015
Hi Tom,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Joe Hershberger
<joe.hershberger at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 04:15:30PM -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>>
>>> This sets the default commands Kconfig to match
>>> include/config_cmd_default.h commands in the common/Kconfig and removes
>>> them from include/configs.
>> [snip]
>>> diff --git a/common/Kconfig b/common/Kconfig
>>> index cb14592..2976cd7 100644
>>> --- a/common/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/common/Kconfig
>> [snip]
>>> config CMD_IMLS
>>> bool "imls"
>>> + default y
>>> help
>>> List all images found in flash
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> config CMD_FLASH
>>> bool "flinfo, erase, protect"
>>> + default y
>>> help
>>> NOR flash support.
>>> flinfo - print FLASH memory information
>>
>> Today we only set these when !SYS_NO_FLASH so we need to Kconfig that
>> first.
>
> While that's true, the moveconfig tool will de-select that option
> based on SYS_NO_FLASH having been set for that board. While that may
> not be ideal as far as reacting to an end-user changing that default
> setting for a given board, the defconfig itself should be consistent
> with the former default behavior. Also, once SYS_NO_FLASH is moved,
> such defconfig entries will be removed automatically by savedefconfig.
> I was trying to limit the number of changes included in this already
> sizable undertaking.
>
> If you feel it's important to include moving this change at the same
> time, then I can add a patch at the end of the series to include this
> move.
>
>>> @@ -352,6 +371,7 @@ menu "Network commands"
>>> config CMD_NET
>>> bool "bootp, tftpboot"
>>> select NET
>>> + default y
>>> help
>>> Network commands.
>>> bootp - boot image via network using BOOTP/TFTP protocol
>>> @@ -379,6 +399,7 @@ config CMD_DHCP
>>>
>>> config CMD_NFS
>>> bool "nfs"
>>> + default y
>>> help
>>> Boot image via network using NFS protocol.
>>
>> I think we now have the smarts available to us to do this only if we
>> have NET set, so "depends NET", yes?
>
> Sure. It could also be a follow-on, though, right? I'm just a bit
> hesitant to redo all of this, since it really takes a long time to
> validate (and still may not be perfect).
>
> I need a new build machine. :/
So what do you need me to do here?
Thanks,
-Joe
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list