On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:47:58PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote: > The i2c_eeprom isn't always necessary when building for SPL, > add the condition on build i2c_eeprom. > > Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang <[email protected]> > --- > > drivers/misc/Makefile | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/Makefile b/drivers/misc/Makefile > index 10265c8fb4..ccc84c38fc 100644 > --- a/drivers/misc/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/misc/Makefile > @@ -20,7 +20,13 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_SPI) += cros_ec_spi.o > endif > obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_IIM) += fsl_iim.o > obj-$(CONFIG_LED_STATUS_GPIO) += gpio_led.o > +ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > +ifneq ($(CONFIG_SPL_I2C_SUPPORT),) > +obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_EEPROM) += i2c_eeprom.o > +endif > +else > obj-$(CONFIG_I2C_EEPROM) += i2c_eeprom.o > +endif > obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_MC9SDZ60) += mc9sdz60.o > obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_OCOTP) += mxc_ocotp.o > obj-$(CONFIG_MXS_OCOTP) += mxs_ocotp.o
What's wrong with building this when not required? Build failure? If so, we should add SPL_I2C_EEPROM and then the above becomes obj-$(CONFIG_$(SPL_)I2C_EEPROM) += i2c_eeprom.o or so. Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
