[U-Boot] [PATCH] misc: Makefile: Add condition on build i2c_eeprom

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:47:58PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:

> The i2c_eeprom isn't always necessary when building for SPL,
> add the condition on build i2c_eeprom.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang at microchip.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/misc/Makefile | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/misc/Makefile b/drivers/misc/Makefile
> index 10265c8fb4..ccc84c38fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/misc/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/misc/Makefile
> @@ -20,7 +20,13 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_SPI) += cros_ec_spi.o
>  endif
>  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_IIM) += fsl_iim.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_LED_STATUS_GPIO) += gpio_led.o
> +ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_SPL_I2C_SUPPORT),)
> +obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_EEPROM) += i2c_eeprom.o
> +endif
> +else
>  obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_EEPROM) += i2c_eeprom.o
> +endif
>  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_MC9SDZ60) += mc9sdz60.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_OCOTP) += mxc_ocotp.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_MXS_OCOTP) += mxs_ocotp.o

What's wrong with building this when not required?  Build failure?  If
so, we should add SPL_I2C_EEPROM and then the above becomes
obj-$(CONFIG_$(SPL_)I2C_EEPROM) += i2c_eeprom.o
or so.  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/20170802/c572df81/attachment.sig>