2015-07-20 11:32 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > HI Masahiro, > > In my fiddling with Rockchip in SPL I found that the current single > config is simple, but a little too limited. You discussed this briefly > with someone from Marvell also. At present we effectively have two > options: > > 1. decide for all boards that a uclass should be supported in SPL (and > put it in Makefile.spl, or not) > > 2. ugly #undefs to try to fix things up after the fact (i.e. #ifdef > CONFIG_SPL_BUILD...#undef CONFIG_PINCTRL) > > You mentioned the idea of allowing something like this: > > spl-$(CONFIG_FRED) += file.o > > In practice I assume you would generate two config headers from the > same input: one for SPL and one for U-Boot proper. > > Another option would be to allow several states for the same config. > At present in the .config files we have: > > CONFIG_FRED=y > > We could allow: > > CONFIG_FRED=yyn > > meaning yes for U-Boot proper, yes for SPL, no for TPL (assuming these > are enabled for the board). For this we would need a new type, similar > to tristate which allows cycling through the options. > > In the Makefile we could have > > obj-$(CONFIG_FRED) += file.o > > and then Kbuild would do the right thing - i.e. include the file for > U-Boot proper, SPL but not TPL. > > What do you think about this? I fear that we need to figure something out...
Please see this. http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-July/220212.html -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
