Hi,
On 8/28/23 12:00, Chanho Park wrote:
Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hris...@collabora.com>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 5:47 PM
To: Chanho Park <chanho61.p...@samsung.com>; 'Michal Simek'
<michal.si...@amd.com>; u-boot@lists.denx.de
Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fpga: define dummy fpga_load function for debug build
On 8/28/23 03:21, Chanho Park wrote:
Hi,
-----Original Message-----
From: Michal Simek <michal.si...@amd.com>
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 4:23 PM
To: Chanho Park <chanho61.p...@samsung.com>; u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fpga: define dummy fpga_load function for debug
build
Hi,
On 8/16/23 08:54, Chanho Park wrote:
This fixes below build error when CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_DEBUG is enabled
and CONFIG_SPL_FPGA is not enabled.
../common/spl/spl_fit.c:591: undefined reference to `fpga_load'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Signed-off-by: Chanho Park <chanho61.p...@samsung.com>
---
include/fpga.h | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/fpga.h b/include/fpga.h index
ed688cc0fa3b..44f2755a3f10 100644
--- a/include/fpga.h
+++ b/include/fpga.h
@@ -60,8 +60,16 @@ int fpga_add(fpga_type devtype, void *desc);
int fpga_count(void);
const fpga_desc *const fpga_get_desc(int devnum);
int fpga_is_partial_data(int devnum, size_t img_len);
+#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FPGA)
int fpga_load(int devnum, const void *buf, size_t bsize,
bitstream_type bstype, int flags);
+#else
+static inline int fpga_load(int devnum, const void *buf, size_t bsize,
+ bitstream_type bstype, int flags) {
+ return FPGA_FAIL;
+}
+#endif
int fpga_fsload(int devnum, const void *buf, size_t size,
fpga_fs_info *fpga_fsinfo);
int fpga_loads(int devnum, const void *buf, size_t size,
There is another patch targeting the same code.
Please take a look at
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230808102227.34233-1-
eugen.hris...@collabora.com
I wasn't aware that there was an attempt to fix the issue. If I knew it,
I would reply the patch...
and work together to come up with the patch which covers both cases.
Yes. I also tried to make the patch with CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_DEBUG
guard but I couldn't find any codes that uses the guard.
And I was also worried about the CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_DEBUG's behavior. It
could be related with the optimization level of the compiler.
That's why I put the guard with #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FPGA).
Best Regards,
Chanho Park
Hi Chanho,
Simon suggested to use CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_DEBUG in this case here:
https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=a911b2cb-c86a1843-a9103984-
74fe4860018a-146c33e2b586dc8a&q=1&e=e288ab48-75e8-400b-91c9-
e8bd95520918&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.ozlabs.org%2Fproject%2Fuboot%2Fpatc
h%2F20230619102839.277902-1-eugen.hristev%40collabora.com%2F
As I told Michal, basically your patch and my patch do the same thing.
I suggested him to pick the one that he thinks it's best. (or even suggest
another way)
I agree. Either way, I'm fine with it.
ok. I prefer Eugen patch and Chanho please send your tag against that patch.
And let me comment Eugen one.
Thanks,
Michal
