+Tom Hi Masahiro,
On 6 May 2015 at 22:04, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote: > Hi. > > 2015-05-05 20:16 GMT+09:00 Yehuda Yitschak <yehu...@marvell.com>: >> Hi Simon >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: s...@google.com [mailto:s...@google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 6:28 >>> To: Yehuda Yitschak >>> Cc: Masahiro Yamada; Hanna Hawa; u-boot@lists.denx.de >>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] switching to single .config configuration issues >>> >>> 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 > > > Or we can use "ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD" to keep drivers from being > compiled into SPL. > (and this is what we have done so far. For example, > drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile) > > ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > obj-$(CONFIG_YOUR_OWN_DRIVER) += your_driver.o > endif > > I know this is an ugly solution... It works fine so long as no board wants the driver in SPL. > > > BTW, barebox (U-boot v2) uses "pbl-y" for objects that should be compiled > into a pre-bootloader (the same concept as what we call SPL). > > obj-(CONFIG_FOO) += foo.o <--- compiled for barebox proper > pbl-(CONFIG_PBL_FOO) += foo.o <--- compiled for pre-bootloader > > Better to bollow this idea? A bit annoying that we then have to repeat every file twice (or three times for TPL). > > >>> 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. >> Linux actually uses a single autoconf.h file by suffixing module configs >> with _MODULE. >> Then all the other build scripts somehow take advantage of that > > Right. This is the way we distinguish modules from built-in drivers in Linux. > > Maybe we can add _SPL suffix, but please let me clarify this idea. > How does "select FOO" work? > > CONFIG_FOO should be enabled for U-Boot only (CONFIG_FOO=y), or also > for SPL (CONFIG_FOO=a)? > How about "depends on FOO"? > Do you then need to cover every combination of U-Boot, SPL, TPL? > >>> How many options do you need to add for manual removal? >> >> I don’t have the exact count but somewhere around 10-20. >> However I think the number itself is not the issue. >> The thing is that you have to update this list every time you modify your >> defconfig otherwise your SPL start bloating. >> That is a bit of a nuisance considering defconfig changes may be frequent >> during development and ramp-up time > > I agree. For this, your spl-y idea is probably easiest. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
