Hi, On 4 May 2015 at 05:34, Yehuda Yitschak <yehu...@marvell.com> wrote: > Hey Simon > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass >> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 21:55 >> To: Yehuda Yitschak >> Cc: Masahiro Yamada; Hanna Hawa; u-boot@lists.denx.de >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] switching to single .config configuration issues >> >> Hi Yehuda, >> >> On 30 April 2015 at 01:21, Yehuda Yitschak <yehu...@marvell.com> wrote: >> > Hey Masahiro >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Masahiro Yamada [mailto:yamada.masah...@socionext.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:46 >> >> To: Yehuda Yitschak >> >> Cc: Simon Glass; Hanna Hawa; u-boot@lists.denx.de >> >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] switching to single .config configuration >> >> issues >> >> >> >> Hi Yehuda, >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-04-29 14:23 GMT+09:00 Yehuda Yitschak <yehu...@marvell.com>: >> >> > Hey Simon, Masahiro >> >> > >> >> > May I suggest an alternative solution to this issue. >> >> > >> >> > What if each Kconfigs option could be set as "y" (compile for >> >> > u-boot only )or "s" (compile for u-boot and SPL) Just as the kernel >> >> > can set Kconfig >> >> to "y" or "m". >> >> > >> >> > With minor modifications to the Makefile, SPL target will compile >> >> > "obj-s" >> >> and u-boot target will compile "obj-s" and "obj-y" >> >> > >> >> > What do you think ? >> >> >> >> >> >> Interesting. >> >> >> >> A little comments. >> >> >> >> - Is there any possibility that some files should be compiled for SPL >> >> only? >> >> (I do not think we have much.) >> >> >> >> Perhaps, obj-y : for U-boot only >> >> obj-s : for SPL only >> >> oby-ys: for both >> >> I am not sure.. >> > >> > How about "a" (as in all targets) instead of "sy". It will look better >> > in the menuconfig square brackets Maybe TPL should also be added as "t" >> option. >> > >> >> >> >> - This idea is only applicable for bool options. >> >> We still have to keep duplication for int/hex options such as >> >> CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE. >> >> >> >> But, this idea will help clean up much because most of configs are >> boolean. >> >> I am still not sure what sorts of things are getting compiled int SPL, and >> thus >> causing problems. Can you please provide a few details? > > We are looking for a very small SPL image that will fit into internal SRAM. > Therefore we want to compile the minimal set of drivers into the SPL. > We have added all our drivers to Kconfig infrastructure (not mainlined yet) > and so each driver > We add to u-boot (like PCIe) will be added to SPL and would require manual > removal using the dedicated H file
I see. Let's see what Masahiro thinks about this. One good thing with this proposal is that we would still only have a single config source file (.config), but I cannot see how it could be implemented without having multiple output autoconf.h files. How many options do you need to add for manual removal? Regards, Simon > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> Masahiro Yamada >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon >> >> Glass >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:06 >> >> >> To: Hanna Hawa >> >> >> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Yehuda Yitschak; Masahiro Yamada >> >> >> Subject: Re: switching to single .config configuration issues >> >> >> >> >> >> +Masahiro (new address) >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Hanna, >> >> >> >> >> >> On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Hanna Hawa <han...@marvell.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Hi everyone, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I’m working on the latest u-boot 2015.04 trying to rebase my >> >> >> > repository to latest code. >> >> >> >> >> >> I would suggest going with upstream/master (targeting 2015.07) >> >> >> since there are several driver model changes since 2015.04 (USB, >> >> >> PCI, Ethernet). There are still patches going in but the bulk of >> >> >> it should be >> >> there. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > And I have question regarding patch e02ee2548afe (kconfig: >> >> >> > switch to single .config configuration) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Issues that I face in the current solution (single .config): >> >> >> > >> >> >> > For my usage most of the CONFIG options will not supported in >> >> >> > the SPL, we need the SPL very tiny and most of the CONFIG will >> >> >> > be enabled in the u-boot, need to undef/disable(set=n) for every >> >> >> > CONFIG in scripts/Makefile.uncmd_spl/ include/config_uncmd_spl.h >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Also for future usage if we want to delete the defines of the >> >> >> > commands from the include file and move it to defconfig file, >> >> >> > then need to undef them in the SPL code. >> >> >> >> >> >> Masahiro is the expert here. The idea is to use SPL-specific >> >> >> options for >> >> SPL. >> >> >> For example CONFIG_SPL_I2C_SUPPORT. This is much the same as >> before. >> >> >> >> >> >> I suggest you create some SPL options for your new features, so >> >> >> that they are only enabled in SPL when you want them. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do you planning for another solution for this issue? >> >> >> >> >> >> Also, if you push your tree to github (or somewhere) I or Masahiro >> >> >> might be able to comment on specifics. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Simon >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > U-Boot mailing list >> >> > U-Boot@lists.denx.de >> >> > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Regards >> >> Masahiro Yamada >> >> Regards, >> Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
