Hi Masahiro, On 20 February 2015 at 17:54, Masahiro YAMADA <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, Stephen, > > > 2015-02-21 3:39 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: >> Hi, >> >> On 20 February 2015 at 10:54, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >>> On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> +Stephen >>>> >>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>> >>>> On 19 February 2015 at 22:25, Masahiro Yamada <yamad...@jp.panasonic.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so >>>>> "!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL_BUILD" are redundant. >>> >>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>>> index 41f3220..700e2a8 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -739,9 +739,8 @@ config TEGRA >>>>> bool "NVIDIA Tegra" >>>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>>> select SPL >>>>> - select OF_CONTROL if !SPL_BUILD >>>>> - select CPU_ARM720T if SPL_BUILD >>>>> - select CPU_V7 if !SPL_BUILD >>>>> + select OF_CONTROL >>>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry if I have missed something here. On Tegra most unfortunately the >>>> SPL uses ARMv4t and U-Boot proper uses ARMv7. In fact that is the only >>>> reason that Tegra has SPL. Doesn't this change with this commit? > > > No. I think behavior is still the same as before. > > In a single .config, we cannot define two CPUs in Kconfig. > > So, we only define CPU_V7, for the main processors. > > For SPL, we override the "CPU" in config.mk > > ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA > CPU := arm720t > endif > endif > > I know what you might be saying is, this is too ugly. Yes. > > I think we can do a little better with further rafactoring, > but the basic idea is, SPL of Tegra is a special case. >
Yes I saw that, I understand now. So SPL_BUILD is no longer available in Kconfig, but is still available in Makefiles, right? > > > >>> Yes, on Tegra SPL runs on an ARMv4t and main U-Boot on some ARMv7 CPU. The >>> change above is actively incorrect. >>> >>> The OF_CONTROL change is probably incorrect too; we certainly don't intend >>> to use OF_CONTROL in the SPL (there's really nothing to control in the SPL) >>> - I just don't know if enabling that feature will cause any issue. Things to >>> look out for would be bloat of the SPL binary so that it didn't fit into the >>> space before the main binary's TEXT_BASE, since the two get concatenated >>> together into a single binary that's loaded into RAM, and XIP'd. >> >> This at least is not a problem with this patch. >> >> I'll make some time to take a look at this in the next few days. >> > > As for CONFIG_OF_CONTROL, I think my answer is already in the git-description. > I wrote as follows: > > - Add some entries to include/config_uncmd_spl.h and the new file > scripts/Makefile.uncmd_spl. Some CONFIG options that are not > supported on SPL must be disabled because one .config is shared > between SPL and U-Boot proper going forward. I know this is not > a beautiful solution and I think we can do better, but let's see > how much we will have to describe them. So I thnk we are OK. I will give it all a test on Tegra. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
