[PATCH v2 02/14] spl: Correct use of CMD_BOOTI and CMD_BOOTZ

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Simon,

On 7/21/24 5:25 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> These should have a CONFIG_ prefix. Add it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> Fixes: 7a0d88076b9 ("Add in the ability to load and boot an uncompr...")
> Reviewed-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>
> ---
> 
> (no changes since v1)
> 
>   common/spl/spl.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
> index 7794ddccade..6f4a8bfb3f4 100644
> --- a/common/spl/spl.c
> +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
> @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ int spl_parse_image_header(struct spl_image_info *spl_image,
>   #endif
>   
>   #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OS_BOOT)
> -#if defined(CMD_BOOTI)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTI)

Maybe use IS_ENABLED(CMD_BOOTI) instead?

>   		ulong start, size;
>   
>   		if (!booti_setup((ulong)header, &start, &size, 0)) {
> @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ int spl_parse_image_header(struct spl_image_info *spl_image,
>   			      spl_image->load_addr, spl_image->size);
>   			return 0;
>   		}
> -#elif defined(CMD_BOOTZ)
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTZ)

Ditto?

In any case,

Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz at cherry.de>

Though.... i'm wondering why we are checking for CMD_BOOTI in SPL in the 
first place?

Cheers,
Quentin

>   		ulong start, end;
>   
>   		if (!bootz_setup((ulong)header, &start, &end)) {