On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 05:02:30PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 9/4/25 10:23 AM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 02:59:01PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On 9/3/25 12:56 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote: > > > > Simplify the depends-on logic for SPL_SIZE_LIMIT. No functional change. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Philip Oberfichtner <p...@denx.de> > > > > --- > > > > Kconfig | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Kconfig b/Kconfig > > > > index aa00669ba20..343299eed50 100644 > > > > --- a/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/Kconfig > > > > @@ -588,8 +588,8 @@ config HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT > > > > config SPL_SIZE_LIMIT > > > > hex "Maximum size of SPL image in bytes" > > > > depends on HAS_SPL_SIZE_LIMIT > > > > - default 0x11000 if ARCH_MX6 && !MX6_OCRAM_256KB > > > > default 0x31000 if ARCH_MX6 && MX6_OCRAM_256KB > > > > + default 0x11000 if ARCH_MX6 > > > This makes it less obvious what the other case (!256 kiB SRAM SoCs) > > > covers, > > > why is that an improvement ? > > > > This was originally Heinrich's idea. I personally find it better this > > way, but I won't argue about it. > > Why do you send a patch which you cannot even argue is correct ? > > > Can you please find a consensus the two of you? > > No, you should be able to clarify why this patch should be applied, do not > shift this onus to other participants.
I prefer conciseness over verbosity. That's all. But I'm okay to step back on this one. There may be different view points.
