[U-Boot] [PATCH V4] Convert CONFIG_SOC_DA8XX et al to Kconfig

[Adam Ford]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:25 PM, David Lechner <david at lechnology.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/2018 01:55 PM, Adam Ford wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:05 PM, David Lechner <david at lechnology.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/02/2018 12:45 PM, Adam Ford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This converts the following to Kconfig:
>>>>      CONFIG_SOC_DA8XX
>>>>      CONFIG_SOC_DA850
>>>>      CONFIG_DA850_LOWLEVEL
>>>>      CONFIG_MACH_DAVINCI_DA850_EVM
>>>>      CONFIG_SYS_DA850_PLL_INIT
>>>>      CONFIG_SYS_DA850_DDR_INIT
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in V4:
>>>>          Rebase against origin/master
>>>>
>>>> Changes in V3:
>>>>          Add bool for DA850_LOWLEVEL and make it select DA850_PLL_INIT
>>>> and
>>>>            DA850_DDR_INIT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like da850_lowlevel.o is also compiled when CONFIG_SPL_BUILD and
>>> CONFIG_SOC_DA8XX are both defined, so this change will most likely break
>>> SPL
>>> builds. So, probably best to just leave DA850_PLL_INIT and DA850_DDR_INIT
>>> alone for now.
>>>
>>
>> Any objections to keeping the migration of DA850_PLL_INIT and
>> DA850_DDR_INIT if I change the dependencies to set both of them when
>> either DA850_LOWLEVEL or SPL is defined?
>
>
> Wouldn't that change the EA20 board since it currently does not select
> DA850_PLL_INIT or DA850_DDR_INIT?

EA20 doesn't appear to be enabling SUPPORT_SPL or DA850_LOWLEVEL.  Am
I missing something?

I would move the selection from DA850_LOWLEVEL to SOC_DA850 like this:

config SOC_DA850
   bool
   select SOC_DA8XX
   select SYS_DA850_PLL_INIT if SUPPORT_SPL || DA850_LOWLEVEL
   select SYS_DA850_DDR_INIT if SUPPORT_SPL || DA850_LOWLEVEL

If neither SUPPORT_SPL nor DA850_LOWLEVEL are enabled, I would not
expect this to be enabled.

What do you think?

adam

>
>
>>
>> adam
>>>
>>>
>>>>          Make OMAPL138_LCDK select SOC_DA8XX instead of SOC_DA850.  The
>>>> name of
>>>>            CONFIG_SOC_DA8XX was left alone here since it wasn't my goal
>>>> to
>>>> change
>>>>            the naming convention.
>>>>          WhileDA850 is probably correct, it would technically be a
>>>> change
>>>> to the
>>>>            compiled code and that wasn't the goal here.
>>>>
>>>
>