Re: [U-Boot] [RESEND PATCH v3 1/3] Don't enable CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB for non-DM SPL

2018-12-10 Thread Marek Vasut
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

Re: [U-Boot] [RESEND PATCH v3 1/3] Don't enable CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB for non-DM SPL

2018-12-10 Thread Martyn Welch
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

Re: [U-Boot] [RESEND PATCH v3 1/3] Don't enable CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB for non-DM SPL

2018-12-10 Thread Marek Vasut
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

Re: [U-Boot] [RESEND PATCH v3 1/3] Don't enable CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB for non-DM SPL

2018-12-10 Thread Jean-Jacques Hiblot
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

[U-Boot] [RESEND PATCH v3 1/3] Don't enable CONFIG_SPL_DM_USB for non-DM SPL

2018-12-10 Thread Martyn Welch
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