[U-Boot] [PATCH 10/41] Convert CONFIG_CMD_PCI to Kconfig

[Bin Meng]

Hi Simon,

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 22 July 2017 at 09:18, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>>> This converts the following to Kconfig:
>>>    CONFIG_CMD_PCI
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>>
> [..]
>
>>> diff --git a/README b/README
>>> index 43691cc167..fe63a7090b 100644
>>> --- a/README
>>> +++ b/README
>>> @@ -813,7 +813,6 @@ The following options need to be configured:
>>>                 CONFIG_CMD_NAND         * NAND support
>>>                 CONFIG_CMD_NET            bootp, tftpboot, rarpboot
>>>                 CONFIG_CMD_NFS            NFS support
>>> -               CONFIG_CMD_PCI          * pciinfo
>>>                 CONFIG_CMD_PCMCIA               * PCMCIA support
>>>                 CONFIG_CMD_PING         * send ICMP ECHO_REQUEST to network
>>>                                           host
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/Kconfig b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/Kconfig
>>> index 6a013b2183..fadfce4f05 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/Kconfig
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config ARCH_LS1021A
>>>         select SYS_FSL_SEC_COMPAT_5
>>>         select SYS_FSL_SEC_LE
>>>         imply SCSI
>>> +       imply CMD_PCI
>>
>> I assume this was converted by moveconfig. It seems some of the
>> Kconfig files are updated to "imply CMD_PCI", but some are not (eg:
>> all x86 boards defconfig files are updated instead). What's the logic
>> for when to use "imply" vs. updating board defconfig file?
>
> If there are 5 or more boards which could benefit from an imply, then
> it adds one. I sometimes change this (e.g. to 4 boards) but I think
> figuring out exactly what each arch / board should imply is the job of
> the maintainer.
>
> It is a lot of work to create these conversion series, and I don't
> think we should strive for 100% perfection. That is the job of board
> maintainers.

Thanks for the clarifications! That makes perfect sense.

Regards,
Bin