[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 00/25] MTD defconfigs/Kconfigs/Makefiles heavy cleanup

From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 00/25] MTD defconfigs/Kconfigs/Makefiles heavy cleanup
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:08:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190220080858.70ca276f@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ebeecff5-73d5-ac1b-f7ae-b5f0b773fafa@ti.com>

Hi Vignesh,

Vignesh R <vigneshr@ti.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:50:18 +0530:

> Hi Jagan,
> 
> On 09/12/18 11:37 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > During my last project about SPI-NAND support in U-Boot, I discovered
> > when modifying Makefiles a confusing organization where:
> > * Sub-directories/files are compiled from the root Makefile
> > * Commands are at the root of everything
> > 
> > I sent a fist series a few weeks ago to move Makefile entries in their
> > respective directories (which needed to be reworked). Since then, I
> > have been working on clarifying all this for the MTD subsystem and
> > here are the main points of such re-organization:
> > * Rename CONFIG_MTD into CONFIG_DM_MTD to reserve CONFIG_MTD to what
> >   is called today CONFIG_MTD_DEVICE.
> > * Fix build dependencies in defconfigs, like: "UBI and NAND depend on MTD".
> > * Fix the Kconfig files to reflect these dependencies (as defconfigs
> >   have been updated, nothing should break).
> > * Simplify the Makefiles: compiling the drivers/mtd/nand/raw/
> >   sub-directory should just depend on MTD being compiled and the NAND
> >   core as well, there is absolutely no logic to make it depend on
> >   CMD_NAND.
> > 
> > New green Travis CI build for the third version of this series:
> > https://travis-ci.org/miquelraynal/u-boot/builds/463486099
> > There are three Sandbox tests that are failing, they have not been
> > break by this series. The following Travis test has been done on the
> > commit on which has been based the series and shows the same errors:
> > https://travis-ci.org/miquelraynal/u-boot/builds/463593006
> >   
> 
> I would like to revive this series. With some rebasing, this series
> should still apply as is.
> 
> Jagan, did you get a chance to look into this series? Any comments?

Thanks for reviving the series, actually I was sure it was merged by
that time as AFAIR there was no more opposition to it.

Jagan, I see it is still marked 'new' on patchwork and assigned to
you, would you mind applying it?

Thanks,
MiquÃ¨l