[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 2/5] usb: am335x_evm: Disable CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB

[Sven Schwermer]

Hi,

> On 20 Nov 2018, at 16:47, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> 
> On 11/20/2018 04:21 PM, Sven Schwermer wrote:
>> Hi again,
>> 
>>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 15:14, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de
>>> <mailto:marex at denx.de>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 11/20/2018 03:10 PM, Sven Schwermer wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, since CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB depends on SPL_DM_USB, I don’t think
>>>>>> that’s the case.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are you _sure_ ? Sorry if I'm being hard, but this affects a lot of
>>>>> users, so I have to be cautious.
>>>> 
>>>> I am _not_ sure. That’s why I used the verb “think” ;-) I’m sorry,
>>>> but I don’t think I can provide the guarantees you need. How can we
>>>> investigate this systematically?
>>> 
>>> I think you can just run make $board_defconfig for all boards (I don't
>>> think you need toolchain to do that) and verify that the option didn't
>>> get enabled in the resulting .config .
>> 
>> I can confirm that after applying this series, no board has
>> CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB=y that does not have CONFIG_DM_USB=y. Why is it
>> necessary to check this? Do we not trust the Kconfig dependencies? Or
>> did I misunderstand you and that’s what you wanted me to check?
> 
> But DM_USB is DM and USB in U-Boot proper and it doesn't imply that SPL
> should have DM or USB support. I want to be sure that some boards don't
> suddenly grow DM or USB support in SPL if it wasn't there before.

If anything, this patch series takes away DM_USB from SPL where it was previously active. Since SPL_DM_USB depends on DM_USB, it won’t be enabled where it wasn’t enabled already. Before this series, DM_USB was enabled also in the SPL when enabled in proper.

Sorry, I guess I’m missing something fundamental here. I fail to see the possibility of code being included in the SPL that wasn’t included before.

Sven