> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86 > > On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 08:33:56AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86 > > > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:10:40PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote: > > > > > > > From: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > set the symbol as weak not work if LTO is enabled. Since > > > > u_boot_any is only used on X86 for now, so guard it with X86, > > > > otherwise build break if we use BINMAN_SYMBOLS on i.MX. > > > > > > > > Tested-by: Tim Harvey <thar...@gateworks.com> #imx8m[m,n,p]-venice > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@nxp.com> > > > > --- > > > > common/spl/spl.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > > common/spl/spl_ram.c | 4 ++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > I think we long term need to figure this out and address it so LTO > > > works. But for now can you please guard this with a test on LTO > > > instead, so it's clear where the problem is? > > > > Sorry, I could not get your point about guard with a test on LTO. > > > > Actually binman weak symbol will report a warning log if there is no > > u_boot_any binman symbol. Since only X86 use it, I guard with X86. > > Why are you mentioning LTO in the commit message? When I read the > commit message it sounds like you're saying the problem is that LTO doesn't > like how this symbol is handled, but if LTO was disabled, everything would be > fine. If it's not LTO-related, please re-word the message instead.
Sorry, I could reword the commit message, but currently I have no better idea to address the issue unless use X86 as a guard in the code as this patch does. If you agree the code in this patch, I could reword commit msg and send v5. Thanks, Peng. > > -- > Tom
