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

[Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>]

Hi Jagan,

Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Feb 2019
08:08:58 +0100:

> 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?

Gentle 3-month-later ping. Jagan, please consider this series.


Thanks,
Miquèl