On 12/10/2018 02:53 PM, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:07 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 12/10/2018 12:05 PM, Martyn Welch wrote:
>>> When CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB was added, it was added defaulted on without
>>> protection to ensure it didn't get set for non-DM SPL builds.
>>>
>>> This
On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 13:07 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/10/2018 12:05 PM, Martyn Welch wrote:
> > When CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB was added, it was added defaulted on without
> > protection to ensure it didn't get set for non-DM SPL builds.
> >
> > This leads to unexpected and confusing failures
On 12/10/2018 12:05 PM, Martyn Welch wrote:
> When CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB was added, it was added defaulted on without
> protection to ensure it didn't get set for non-DM SPL builds.
>
> This leads to unexpected and confusing failures when building a DM based
> U-Boot but with a non-DM SPL, as the
On 10/12/2018 12:05, Martyn Welch wrote:
When CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB was added, it was added defaulted on without
protection to ensure it didn't get set for non-DM SPL builds.
This leads to unexpected and confusing failures when building a DM based
U-Boot but with a non-DM SPL, as the defconfig is
When CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB was added, it was added defaulted on without
protection to ensure it didn't get set for non-DM SPL builds.
This leads to unexpected and confusing failures when building a DM based
U-Boot but with a non-DM SPL, as the defconfig is unlikely to have
CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB actively
5 matches
Mail list logo