[PATCH v3 5/5] Image size checks: Simplify SPL_SIZE_LIMIT logic

[Marek Vasut]

On 9/4/25 10:23 AM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:59:01PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 9/3/25 12:56 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
>>> Simplify the depends-on logic for SPL_SIZE_LIMIT. No functional change.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philip Oberfichtner <pro at denx.de>
>>> ---
>>>    Kconfig | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig
>>> index aa00669ba20..343299eed50 100644
>>> --- a/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/Kconfig
>>> @@ -588,8 +588,8 @@ config HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
>>>    config SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
>>>    	hex "Maximum size of SPL image in bytes"
>>>    	depends on HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT
>>> -	default 0x11000 if ARCH_MX6 && !MX6_OCRAM_256KB
>>>    	default 0x31000 if ARCH_MX6 && MX6_OCRAM_256KB
>>> +	default 0x11000 if ARCH_MX6
>> This makes it less obvious what the other case (!256 kiB SRAM SoCs) covers,
>> why is that an improvement ?
> 
> This was originally Heinrich's idea. I personally find it better this
> way, but I won't argue about it.

Why do you send a patch which you cannot even argue is correct ?

> Can you please find a consensus the two of you?

No, you should be able to clarify why this patch should be applied, do 
not shift this onus to other participants.