Hi,
Am 30.08.2022 um 04:29 schrieb Simon Glass:
Hi Stefan,
On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 09:53, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
Am 29.08.2022 um 17:01 schrieb Heinrich Schuchardt:
On 8/8/22 16:45, Stefan Herbrechtsmeier wrote:
From: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier <[email protected]>
The spl doesn't support ubifs and thereby doesn't provide the
ubifs_is_mounted function. Remove the dependency to ubifs for the spl.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
<[email protected]>
---
disk/part.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/disk/part.c b/disk/part.c
index 79955c7fb0..de1b917e84 100644
--- a/disk/part.c
+++ b/disk/part.c
@@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ int blk_get_device_part_str(const char *ifname,
const char *dev_part_str,
}
#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_CMD_UBIFS
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CMD_UBIFS) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD)
This configuration seems strange. The support for a file system should
not depend on a command. I think a CONFIG_UBIFS is missing.
The support for the ubi file system depends on the command. The code use
the ubifs_is_mounted function from cmd/ubifs.c file and reference the
ubifsmount command from the same file.
Yes it does, but it should not (I think I made the point in another
thread but did not understand your response). The UBIFS Kconfig should
be separate from CMD_UBIFS.
I think we agree that the ubifs implementation isn't optimal. But this
patch only fix a problem for SPL if UBIFS is enabled in u-boot proper.
The wrong implementation was accept by u-boot 7 years ago.
The problem for me is that we no longer use UBI. I fear that a rework of
UBI needs a lot of time to to fix a 'should not'. On the other hand I
have patches with an unclear status that fix problems / incompatibilities.
Regards
Stefan
