On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:38:41AM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > On 01/20/2017 10:25 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:35:44PM -0600, Andrew F. Davis wrote: > > > >> Print statements in SPL depend on lib/common support, so many such > >> statements are ifdef'd, move the check to the common.h header and > >> remove these inline checks. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andrew F. Davis <a...@ti.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > This patch is a good example of why travis-ci is useful, even if takes a > > few hours for the cycle to complete (kick it off and check the results > > in the morning :)). As is, it's broken on PowerPC (where > > CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL is the conditional for puts/printf/etc), mx31pdk > > and evb-rk3036 (and this is an incomplete list). The ARM targets are > > harder to just fix as it shows an underlying problem. Today we have no > > single symbol that means "In SPL I want serial output" (and ditto TPL). > > We try and rely on SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT but this misses the case where we > > use neither TINY_PRINTF nor LIBCOMMON but instead have only puts > > available in a more raw way. So before we can make the type of change > > you're doing here we need to introduce a symbol that means "I have > > output". That will also greatly reduce the logic needed in the tests in > > common.h for having puts/etc be real or do-while loops. Thanks! > > Ahh, I was expecting something like this happening with all the levels > of ifdef logic involved. Could we keep this patch and add > CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL to the check in common.h?
I did that, but it does not address the problem of mx31pdk and rockchip and others. > Removing all these various ifdefs from files is still correct, all this > ifdef logic should *not* be around calls to puts/etc in-line in the > code, all we need is to figure out the logic for the function's > definitions in common.h, which can be cleaned up in a later patch. Well, thinking about this harder. What would be OK for now would be a v2 (that you've pushed through travis-ci) that just removes the tests as that should be OK. But... I wonder if we don't have those tests due to needing to #if out the prints due to the gcc bug[1] that's only fixed in gcc 6.x and later. [1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54303 -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
