Dear Mike Frysinger, In message <200902101449.24108.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > > > > + @$(MAKE) -s -B $(obj)include/autoconf.mk > > > > > + @$(MAKE) -s -B $(obj)include/autoconf.mk > > > > > > > > Do you really mean to do this twice? > > > > > > unfortunately, yes. since some settings in the board config are turned > > > into compiler flags and those compiler flags can in turn affect the board > > > config, we need to do it twice. first is to make sure the proper cpu > > > flags are propagated into the toplevel build env while the second is to > > > make sure the autoconf.mk fully reflects the board config. > > > > Sounds like a design problem to me. > > not really. the point is to avoid duplication and considering the method to > attain that, sounds pretty good to me.
Well, no othe rarchitecture seems to need that, and it looks very strange. I guess 4 out of 5 persons who will see this are tempted to "clean this up". > > That would be the minimum, but given the fact that the top level > > Makefile already includes rules to build autoconf.mk I really wonder > > if we must do this so often, and if so, then why this is only the > > case for blackfin. > > the top level Makefile includes rules to build it, but it doesnt re-source it > once it's been generated. so anything in the top level cannot use things > from > autoconf.mk (like $(arch)_config.mk). To me it seems as if you were rebuilding it twice without re-sourcing it inbetween, too. And you fail to explain why BF needs this, while all other architectures don't. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de The software required `Windows 95 or better', so I installed Linux. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
