[U-Boot] [PATCH 8/8] defconfig: keystone: Enable DM I2C

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:41:50PM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/12/2017 02:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:26:21PM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/12/2017 02:13 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:37:25PM -0500, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Now that the davinci I2C driver is converted to driver model enable
> >>>> it in 66AK2Gx defconfig
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper at ti.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  configs/k2e_evm_defconfig  | 1 +
> >>>>  configs/k2g_evm_defconfig  | 1 +
> >>>>  configs/k2hk_evm_defconfig | 1 +
> >>>>  configs/k2l_evm_defconfig  | 1 +
> >>>>  4 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> Should we be imply/select'ing DM_I2C from the Kconfig file now?
> >>
> >> Is the goal to reduce the size of the defconfig? Or is it to essentially
> >> force all K2 boards (including possible future non TI boards) to use the
> >> DM so we can deprecate/remove non DM code in the future?
> >>
> >> If its for the latter then I don't have an issue doing so.
> > 
> > Well, both.  I think 'imply' is a great way to specify default values in
> > such a way that making new boards/defconfigs is easy and likely to be
> > correct.  But also, yes, non-DM will go away at some point.
> > 
> 
> I'm ok with that. Do you want me to resend this patchset and switch this
> patch from enabling DM_I2C via defconfig to KConfig? Or you can just
> drop this patch from the patchset and then I can just send a separate
> patch enabling DM_I2C via KConfig.
> 
> I'm ok with what ever you prefer.

Do a new 8/8 that does imply instead please, thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20170412/74040459/attachment.sig>