[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Lokesh Vutla]

On 22/02/19 5:21 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> On 22/02/19 5:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>>>>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas at ti.com>
>>>>
>>>> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
>>>> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> This commit added this:
>>>
>>> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
>>> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com>
>>> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
>>>
>>>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
>>>
>>>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>>>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
>>>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx.de>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
>>> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
>>> environment to FAT partition.
>>
>> Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
>> enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
>> that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
>> to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
>> reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
>> But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.
>>
> 
> Ok. The cover letter said they want to get rid of raw bootmode
> altogether and that is why I was concerned. Thanks for clearing it up.

If EMMC is the already the first in the list for saving env, then we don't need
this change right?

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh

> 
> Regards,
> Faiz
>