Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/17] Version 0 of Kconfig for U-Boot

2014-03-24 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Masahiro, In message 20140324145814.b35f.aa925...@jp.panasonic.com you wrote: You are suggesting a better idea below. We should not treat SPL as a special case. In my opinion, CONFIG_SPL_* should be discontinued. For example, we can merge CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE to

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/17] Version 0 of Kconfig for U-Boot

2014-03-24 Thread Masahiro Yamada
Hi Wolfgang, On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:30:56 +0100 Wolfgang Denk w...@denx.de wrote: Dear Masahiro, In message 20140324145814.b35f.aa925...@jp.panasonic.com you wrote: You are suggesting a better idea below. We should not treat SPL as a special case. In my opinion, CONFIG_SPL_*

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/17] Version 0 of Kconfig for U-Boot

2014-03-23 Thread Masahiro Yamada
file. But this is fine with me. This item has been discussed in another thread: http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/RFC-PATCH-0-17-Version-0-of-Kconfig-for-U-Boot-td176113i20.html#a176247 I think Tom will post a patch to re-add MAINTAINERS file. Happy to help, although I'd like to figure out

Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 0/17] Version 0 of Kconfig for U-Boot

2014-03-20 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Masahiro, On 17 March 2014 01:52, Masahiro Yamada yamad...@jp.panasonic.com wrote: Several weeks have passed since Kbuild series was merged to the code base at 2014.01-rc1. I think now is a good time to start to discuss the next stage. Yes, our promised land, Kconfig. Great! I have a