On 03/01/2018 12:14 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 12:05:52AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >> On 02/28/2018 02:09 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:01:02PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>>> Enable networking command only when NET is enabled. >>>> And remove selecting NET for CMD_NET >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> - Check several boards by hand. >>>> >>>> There is a huge impact on defconfigs because of select NET. >>>> But this change makes sense to do but it just needs to be syncup >>>> properly. Do we have a tool for this kind of change? >>> >>> So, I've applied this patch, with a good bit of modification. What I >>> wasn't clear about before, sorry, was that we need to make NET default y >>> in here too. However, we also have some decent areas of the code that >>> use "CONFIG_CMD_NET" when it really means "CONFIG_NET", at least >>> conceptually. But in order to make everything work as-is today, and >>> leave these fixes to a later point in time (as they are fixes and should >>> happen) we change some areas today that reference CONFIG_NET to >>> reference CONFIG_CMD_NET. Once net/ gets cleaned up, we can use >>> CONFIG_NET without CONFIG_CMD_NET in more area. It's also not quite >>> 100% size-neutral as the topic_miami* boards were playing some games >>> that can't quite be done as they were before, but I believe the end >>> result is they can now more easily and thoroughly disable the networking >>> stuff that intended to be removed. >>> >>> >> >> Hello Tom, >> >> in spite of you comments above I do not understand why you changed >> cmd/bootefi.c to depend on CONFIG_CMD_NET instead of CONFIG_NET. > > Because the underlying generic network functionality that efi_loader > uses is actually gated under CONFIG_CMD_NET and not CONFIG_NET. This > should be corrected, in the long term. > >> This was not part of Michal's patch. >> >> I would prefer if changes would be sent to the list for review *before* >> being applied. >> >> As the patch that you applied is not Michal's patch your authorship should >> be documented in the git log. > > Ah, I forgot to add my S-o-B? Oops, that was unintentional.
It is not that your Signed-of-by is missing. But your signature follows directly Michal's. So it looks as if you applied the patch signed by Michal unchanged. Best regards Heinrich > >> I cannot see any reason why network support should be disabled in bootefi if >> there are no network commands available. > > In theory and concept, I agree. In current implementation, that is not > the case and I would welcome further changes that make the code reflect > the general intention. > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
