On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:48:33PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025, 07:39 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:09:47PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 15:59, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 02:57:59PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 11:03 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 05:50:13AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 at 15:58, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 01:05:11PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 at 11:35, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:41:45AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 at 09:40, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 03:54:21PM -0700, Simon Glass
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 14:22, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:03:20AM -0700, Simon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just wanted to send a note to (re-)introduce my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideas[1] for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next iteration of xPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A recent series introduced 'xPL' as the name for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the various
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-U-Boot phases, so now CONFIG_XPL_BUILD means
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that this is any xPL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phase and CONFIG_SPL means this really is the SPL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phase, not TPL. We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > still use filenames and function naming which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses 'spl', but could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > potentially adjust that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The major remaining problem IMO is that it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quite tricky and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expensive (in terms of time) to add a new phase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We also have some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > medium-sized problems:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a. The $(PHASE_), $(SPL_) rules in the Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are visually ugly and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can be confusing, particularly when combined with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ifdef and ifneq
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b. We have both CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IS_ENABLED() and they mean
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different things. For any given option, some code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > uses one and some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the other, depending on what problems people have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > met along the way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c. An option like CONFIG_FOO is ambiguous, in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that it could mean that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the option is enabled in one or more xPL phases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or just in U-Boot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proper. The only way to know is to look for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $(PHASE_) etc. in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefiles and CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() in the code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is very confusing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and has not scaled well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > d. We need to retain an important feature:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options from different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phases can depend on each other. As an example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we might want to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable MMC in SPL by default, if MMC is enabled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in U-Boot proper. We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > may also want to share values between phases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such as TEXT_BASE. We
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can do this easily today, just by adding Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rules.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with a through c and for d there are likely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some cases even if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure TEXT_BASE is a good example. But I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not sure it's as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > important as the other ones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OK. No, TEXT_BASE is not a great example in my book
> > > > > > > > > > > > > either. But it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > true that SPL needs to know U-Boot's text base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's another:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > config SPL_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > config TPL_SYS_MALLOC_F
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default y if SPL_SYS_MALLOC_F
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > config TPL_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> > > > > > > > > > > > > depends on TPL_SYS_MALLOC_F
> > > > > > > > > > > > > default SPL_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alternatively:
> > > > > > > > > > > > config SYS_MALLOC_LEN
> > > > > > > > > > > > ... current default X if Y
> > > > > > > > > > > > default 0x2800 if RCAR_GEN3 && !PPL
> > > > > > > > > > > > default 0x2000 if IMX8MQ && !PPL
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > PPL means (in my book) that we have a PPL, i.e. it is
> > > > > > > > > > > always true. It
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And in my proposal you're choosing between PPL, SPL, TPL,
> > > > > > > > > > VPL.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > is the same today, with SPL. We have CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> > > > > > > > > > > which indicates
> > > > > > > > > > > which build it is. If you are suggesting that SPL means
> > > > > > > > > > > that this is
> > > > > > > > > > > the SPL build, then which thing tells us whether or not
> > > > > > > > > > > we have an SPL
> > > > > > > > > > > build? I'm just a bit confused by this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And we wouldn't have CONFIG_SPL_BUILD because we would
> > > > > > > > > > either be
> > > > > > > > > > configuring for SPL=y or SPL=n, there's no confusion
> > > > > > > > > > anymore.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But how can I make the TPL value of SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN the
> > > > > > > > > > > same as the
> > > > > > > > > > > SPL one, with your scheme?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If your question is "how do I set an arbitrary but
> > > > > > > > > > consistent value in
> > > > > > > > > > SPL and SPL" that's not enforced. But they also shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > be arbitrary
> > > > > > > > > > and we should have sane defaults set in Kconfig, regardless
> > > > > > > > > > of either
> > > > > > > > > > proposal. While I'm trying to not get lost in the details
> > > > > > > > > > today we have
> > > > > > > > > > 80 matches on "git grep SPL_.*_LEN= configs/" and 2 for TPL
> > > > > > > > > > and I would
> > > > > > > > > > encourage someone to verify those are needed. My initial
> > > > > > > > > > recollection is
> > > > > > > > > > that most of these are from when we bumped SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN
> > > > > > > > > > or so up to
> > > > > > > > > > the commonly used default and had the few platforms that
> > > > > > > > > > didn't use the
> > > > > > > > > > new default previously switch to the old one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In other words, I don't think there's a problem here that
> > > > > > > > > > isn't solved
> > > > > > > > > > today, outside of either proposal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So I'm still not understanding how you handle Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > dependencies
> > > > > > > > > > > between phases with your scheme. Are you saying you don't
> > > > > > > > > > > and they are
> > > > > > > > > > > not important?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Basically. The majority of the cases of:
> > > > > > > > > > config SPL_FOO
> > > > > > > > > > default y if FOO
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > config TPL_FOO
> > > > > > > > > > default y if SPL_FOO
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Just go away because FOO is already default y or
> > > > > > > > > > select/imply'd by
> > > > > > > > > > TARGET_BAR or ARCH_BAZ.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, is there a single Kconfig tree for U-Boot, or are
> > > > > > > > > > > you saying you
> > > > > > > > > > > want a different set of Kconfig files for each phase?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Just the Kconfig files we have today. Likely with less
> > > > > > > > > > overall lines
> > > > > > > > > > since for example we could drop:
> > > > > > > > > > config SPL_FS_EXT4
> > > > > > > > > > bool "Support EXT filesystems"
> > > > > > > > > > select SPL_CRC16 if EXT4_WRITE
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since we already have fs/ext4/Kconfig.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Proposal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Adjust kconf to generate separate autoconf.h
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files for each phase.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These contain the values for each Kconfig option
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for that phase. For
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > example CONFIG_TEXT_BASE in autoconf_spl.h is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL's text base.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Add a file to resolve the ambiguity in (c)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > above, listing the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kconfig options which should not be enabled/valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any xPL build.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are around 200 of these.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Introduce CONFIG_PPL as a new prefix, meaning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U-Boot proper (only),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful in rare cases. This indicates that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option applies only to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > U-Boot proper and is not defined in any xPL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build. It is analogous to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL_xxx meaning 'enabled in TPL'. Only a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dozen of these are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needed at present, basically to allow access to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the value for another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phase, e.g. SPL wanting to find
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_PPL_TEXT_BASE so that it knows
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the address to which U-Boot should be loaded.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. There is no change to the existing defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > files, or 'make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > menuconfig', which works just as today, including
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dependencies between
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options across all phases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. (next) Expand the Kconfig language[2] to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support declaring phases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (SPL, TPL, etc.) and remove the need for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > duplicating options (DM_MMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL_DM_MMC, TPL_DM_MMC, VPL_DM_MMC), so allowing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an option to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > declared once for any/all phases. We can then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drop the file in 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > above.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With this, maintaining Kconfig options, Makefiles
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and adding a new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > phase should be considerably easier.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this will not make our life easier, it will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make things harder.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think what we've reached now shows that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yamada-san was correct at the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time in saying that we were going down the wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > path with how we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled SPL/TPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You've mentioned this quite a few times over the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > years. Is there a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to what he suggested we should do? Or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > perhaps it is what you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have below.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't recall what he proposed instead, just that when
> > > > > > > > > > > > it became clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > that I wanted to move from the "S:CONFIG_FOO.." syntax
> > > > > > > > > > > > for how SPL was
> > > > > > > > > > > > handled to how we're doing it today, he thought that
> > > > > > > > > > > > was the wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > direction.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, IMO he was right about that.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My request instead is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Largely drop SPL/TPL/VPL (so no DM_MMC and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL_DM_MMC and so on, just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > DM_MMC) as a prefix.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Likely need to introduce a PPL symbol as you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Make PPL/SPL/TPL/VPL be a choice statement when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > building a defconfig.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Split something like rockpro64-rk3399_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and add Makefile logic such that for X_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a build target but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not configs/X_defconfig not existing, we see if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > configs/X_{ppl,spl,tpl,vpl}_defconfig exist and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we run a builds in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > subdirectories of our object directory, and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > using binman combine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This means splitting the existing file into a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > separate one for each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > phase. I believe that will be hard to manage.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Do you mean initially, or long term? Initially, it
> > > > > > > > > > > > should be a bit of
> > > > > > > > > > > > shell scripting. The consolidation (ie most/all rk3399
> > > > > > > > > > > > having an
> > > > > > > > > > > > identical _spl_defconfig) can't be automated. Long term
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure it
> > > > > > > > > > > > would be any different. Most of the maintenance is on
> > > > > > > > > > > > resync'ing which
> > > > > > > > > > > > is automated.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Long term. How does 'make menuconfig' work in this case?
> > > > > > > > > > > Won't you
> > > > > > > > > > > have to run it three times for SPL, TPL and PPL?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, you would run configure for what you're building. This
> > > > > > > > > > is a good
> > > > > > > > > > thing as it will no longer be so confusing to hunt down
> > > > > > > > > > where SPL or TPL
> > > > > > > > > > or VPL options for a specific thing reside.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Maybe instead the Makefile logic above we would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > parse X_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and see if it's a different format of say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PHASE:file to make it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier to say share a single TPL config with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all rk3399, have a few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > common SPL configs and then just a board
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific PPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This solves (a) by removing them entirely. This
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > solves (b) by removing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ambiguity entirely (it will be enabled or not).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a bonus for (b)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we can switch everyone to IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and match up with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Linux Kernel again. This solves (c) again by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > removing it entirely.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The scheme I propose removes a-c also. I should have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > made that clear.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Er, ok. That's not how it looked before, but I guess
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm just mistaken.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes I think so...it was a major goal to remove this
> > > > > > > > > > > stuff. [1] [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > There is not a huge difference between your scheme
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and mine. My
> > > > > > > > > > > > > question is, how do you handle (d)?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, either (d) isn't important as for example MMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > wasn't a good choice
> > > > > > > > > > > > in your proposal as virtually everyone "select MMC"
> > > > > > > > > > > > today or it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > handled more easily as my example above in
> > > > > > > > > > > > SYS_MALLOC_LEN.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The way I see it, both schemes remove the ambiguity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mine retains a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > single deconfig file and a single 'make menuconfig'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for each board.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yours feels more like building independent U-Boot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > images.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is explicitly building independent U-Boot images,
> > > > > > > > > > > > yes. With a wrapper
> > > > > > > > > > > > around "make all of the images for a given platform".
> > > > > > > > > > > > So much of our
> > > > > > > > > > > > confusing and messy code is because we aren't doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > that. And since most
> > > > > > > > > > > > modern SoCs can work as (mostly )generic SPL selects
> > > > > > > > > > > > correct DTB for PPL
> > > > > > > > > > > > we really could have fewer overall build configurations.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to see a generic aarch64 U-Boot for PPL,
> > > > > > > > > > > although it
> > > > > > > > > > > would be quite large with all the drivers. Perhaps we
> > > > > > > > > > > could start by
> > > > > > > > > > > having a generic Rockchip one, for example.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Still I don't see this being strongly related to the
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > these two different schemes.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, in your scheme how do we have say
> > > > > > > > > > generic-aarch64_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > function on either chromebook_bob or am62x_beagleplay_a53 ?
> > > > > > > > > > In mine,
> > > > > > > > > > since everything is a separate build,
> > > > > > > > > > generic-aarch64_defconfig has
> > > > > > > > > > PPL=y, ARCH_K3=y and ROCKCHIP_RK3399=y. And then
> > > > > > > > > > chromebook_bob_defconfig would say to use
> > > > > > > > > > chromebook_bob_tpl_defconfig,
> > > > > > > > > > generic-rk3399_spl_defconfig and generic-aarch64_defconfig.
> > > > > > > > > > As a bonus
> > > > > > > > > > instead of am62x_beagleplay_a53_defconfig and
> > > > > > > > > > am62x_beagleplay_r5_defconfig we would have
> > > > > > > > > > am62x_beagleplay_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > that would say to use the appropriate SPL/PPL for R5, and
> > > > > > > > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > > > > SPL/PPL for A53.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > But the one big huge caveat I want to make here is that
> > > > > > > > > > "generic" images
> > > > > > > > > > are useful in some use cases (I'm sure all of the regular
> > > > > > > > > > F/OSS
> > > > > > > > > > distributions would love a single actually common PPL if
> > > > > > > > > > they can fit
> > > > > > > > > > it) will strip things down. Whatever the IoT edge device
> > > > > > > > > > closest to you
> > > > > > > > > > now really won't want to ship with all the platforms
> > > > > > > > > > enabled. Image size
> > > > > > > > > > still matters.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > OK thanks for the details. I think I have a reasonable idea
> > > > > > > > > of what
> > > > > > > > > you are proposing, now. It would work, but is quite radical,
> > > > > > > > > IMO.
> > > > > > > > > That's not necessarily a bad thing, but in my mind I see a
> > > > > > > > > sequencing
> > > > > > > > > possibility.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A few points from my side:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. I would love to see the defconfig files reduce in size,
> > > > > > > > > with more
> > > > > > > > > and better defaults. One way to do this would be to enforce a
> > > > > > > > > maximum
> > > > > > > > > length. I added a feature to qconfig to allow finding common
> > > > > > > > > options
> > > > > > > > > among boards (the -i flag), but I'm not sure if many people
> > > > > > > > > use it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't see reducing defconfig size as important honestly.
> > > > > > > > Should we
> > > > > > > > have more and better defaults? Yes. But almost everything is
> > > > > > > > under 200
> > > > > > > > lines with the biggest (non-sandbox) ones being the generic
> > > > > > > > zynqmp
> > > > > > > > platform(s?).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. Generic boards is something I have been pushing for years
> > > > > > > > > (in fact
> > > > > > > > > it is why I originally introduced devicetree), but I'm not
> > > > > > > > > seeing a
> > > > > > > > > lot of traction.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think generic boards are universally helpful. Even if
> > > > > > > > what I'm
> > > > > > > > proposing would allow for more of it, below the PPL stage I'm
> > > > > > > > not sure
> > > > > > > > it's both feasible enough and useful enough for production. At
> > > > > > > > the PPL
> > > > > > > > stage it still has to be small enough and not overly
> > > > > > > > burdensome. What we
> > > > > > > > talked about on the call yesterday about using more multi-dtb
> > > > > > > > images is
> > > > > > > > a step in the right direction, yes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Agreed. Anway, we can create separate targets for generic boards
> > > > > > > if we want to.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Iit seems that you want to remove all the 'if SPL' pieces
> > > > > > > > > and just
> > > > > > > > > rely on the current PPL configuration. But how will that
> > > > > > > > > work? There
> > > > > > > > > are tons of features which don't work in SPL, or are not
> > > > > > > > > relevant, or
> > > > > > > > > have special 'small' versions. That is a *lot* of Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > refactoring
> > > > > > > > > just to get something working, isn't it? With my scheme there
> > > > > > > > > is no
> > > > > > > > > Kconfig change needed initially - it can be done later as
> > > > > > > > > needed /
> > > > > > > > > desirable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think we would remove most "if SPL" cases. Taking part
> > > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > > current stanza for ROCKCHIP_RK3399 as an example:
> > > > > > > > config ROCKCHIP_RK3399
> > > > > > > > bool "Support Rockchip RK3399"
> > > > > > > > select ARM64
> > > > > > > > select SUPPORT_SPL
> > > > > > > > select SUPPORT_TPL
> > > > > > > > select SPL
> > > > > > > > select SPL_ATF
> > > > > > > > select SPL_BOARD_INIT if SPL
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > select SPL_CLK if SPL
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > select CLK
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > imply TPL_CLK
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This would become:
> > > > > > > > config ROCKCHIP_RK3399
> > > > > > > > bool "Support Rockchip RK3399"
> > > > > > > > select ARM64
> > > > > > > > select SUPPORT_SPL
> > > > > > > > select SUPPORT_TPL
> > > > > > > > select SPL_ATF if SPL # TBD: Does 'ATF' make sense
> > > > > > > > outside of SPL?
> > > > > > > > select BOARD_INIT if SPL # Not TPL_BOARD_INIT here
> > > > > > > > select CLK # imply was likely wrong before? Would need
> > > > > > > > to check
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was more talking about the large blocks of 'if SPL' - e.g. we
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > common/spl/Kconfig and common/spl/Kconfig.tpl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would vastly reduce the contents within those 'if' blocks, but
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > are still options that are xPL-centric without a PPL counterpart,
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > as SPL_ATF (I suspect, but if not I'm sure others).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But just the level of thought required in your small example above
> > > > > > > suggests it is a large effort.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, restructuring our Kconfig logic and then removing our xPL
> > > > > > logic is
> > > > > > some work. So was, I suspect, all of what you did already.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4. My scheme splits the config into separate files. Yours
> > > > > > > > > makes the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't see yours as splitting the configs in to separate
> > > > > > > > files, I see
> > > > > > > > it as generating some intermediate objects. The configs don't
> > > > > > > > change and
> > > > > > > > that's one of our problem areas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you mean a big problem area is the current Kconfig?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mean it's a problem for users a board developers to make valid
> > > > > > configurations and update them as needed. Filesystems are in the
> > > > > > filesystem menu, unless they're SPL and then it's all under the big
> > > > > > SPL
> > > > > > menu.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mind generates
> > > > > > > out to an include/generated/autoconf_xxx for each phase. Yes they
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > intermediate files and auto-generated, but each 100% controls its
> > > > > > > phase, so there is no confusion and CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() / odd
> > > > > > > Makefile
> > > > > > > rules anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, removing CONFIG_IS_ENABLED and $(PHASE_)/$(XPL_) from
> > > > > > Makefiles is
> > > > > > good. But the intermediate files aren't going to help (nor hurt)
> > > > > > any of
> > > > > > the problems themselves. If you're reading those to figure out a
> > > > > > problem, it's like when you're reading a .i file to figure out a
> > > > > > problem, it means you're already in a complex troublesome spot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I don't know that CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT=y means that
> > > > > > CONFIG_FS_FAT=y for
> > > > > > SPL builds leads to "no confusion". But I do think that
> > > > > > CONFIG_SPL=y and
> > > > > > CONFIG_FS_FAT=y does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > split earlier, at the Kconfig level. So it seems that we
> > > > > > > > > could go with
> > > > > > > > > my scheme to get us to a split config, then, after that,
> > > > > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > > > whether to move that split earlier to Kconfig itself. The
> > > > > > > > > choices
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't think so. Yours makes things complicated by making the
> > > > > > > > build do
> > > > > > > > even more (and from the RFC, the implementation tooling
> > > > > > > > diverges from
> > > > > > > > upstream).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes it makes the kconf tool generate those separate files for
> > > > > > > each phase [3]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mine makes things differently complicated by doing less for
> > > > > > > > most things, but needing some thought on how to know that say
> > > > > > > > chromebook_bob needs chromebook_bob_tpl_defconfig,
> > > > > > > > chromebook_bob_spl_defconfig and chromebook_bob_ppl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > built, before asking binman to go put things together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yours seems feasible in a fully Binman world, but given the
> > > > > > > difficulty
> > > > > > > we (or I) have completing a migration, I honestly don't believe
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is feasible in today's U-Boot. The other problem is that it all
> > > > > > > has to
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not 100% sure it's everything needs binman actually. Or even if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > do take this as a reason to push for more binman, it's just some
> > > > > > trivial
> > > > > > types already handled in the Makefile that's missing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > be done at once. We need to rewrite the Kconfig and flip over the
> > > > > > > board. Will we carry people with us? That is a huge risk to the
> > > > > > > project IMO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure, actually, that it couldn't be done in stages. We might
> > > > > > need a little bit of fakery around being able to just build SPL
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > PPL in the interim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyway, yes my schema makes the build do even more (with 400
> > > > > > > lines of
> > > > > > > kconf additions and a patch that can likely be upstreamed). But
> > > > > > > otherwise, it is a one-off improvement, without any changes to the
> > > > > > > existing Kconfig.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I thought Yamada-san rejected changes going in this direction
> > > > > > before?
> > > > > > But either way, no it's not likely the final overburden in terms of
> > > > > > divergence.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Masahiro will make his own decisions and I am confident he will
> > > > > reject any future changes I send
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So my point is that we could go with the first part of my scheme
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > resolve the 'medium' problems then decide which way to continue
> > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > that. From your side you won't have lost anything towards where
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > want to head. The two options would then be:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - exhance kconfig language to build in the notion of phases
> > > > > > > - split the defconfigs for each board, redo the Kconfig rules and
> > > > > > > teach the build to combine images
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If things go down your proposed path instead, no, I don't see that
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > making it meaningfully easier to go the way I proposed later. The
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > commonality is dropping $(PHASE_)/$(XPL_)/etc and CONFIG_IS_ENABLED
> > > > > > ->
> > > > > > IS_ENABLED. And (almost) all of that is a script'able change.
> > > > >
> > > > > To be frank, the difference is that I have actually put in the work to
> > > > > try this. It is more than 50 and perhaps as many as 100 patches. Quite
> > > > > difficult work. Honestly, compared to that, the logic changes are not
> > > > > that large.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is why I believe this work is a prerequisite for both schemes
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > would then be to use your scheme (Kconfig refactoring,
> > > > > > > > > splitting
> > > > > > > > > defconfigs and some rework), or to do my scheme (which would
> > > > > > > > > require
> > > > > > > > > enhancing the Kconfig language a bit just for U-Boot and some
> > > > > > > > > optional
> > > > > > > > > rework over time). Both schemes would need a small amount of
> > > > > > > > > build-logic changes, but I'm not sure yet what that would
> > > > > > > > > look like.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Does that sound right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With what I said above, yes I think we're closer at least to
> > > > > > > > understanding each other.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, with that, what now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What makes the current situation untenable is VPL. And I gather I
> > > > > > haven't convinced you to put that on hold long enough to instead
> > > > > > rework
> > > > > > how we build things, have I?
> > > > >
> > > > > Which VPL thing?
> > > >
> > > > That it exists. When it was just SPL, it's manageable. With TPL, well,
> > > > it was supposed to be tiny and so just a few more things. And with VPL,
> > > > that makes 4. It's too much. Something needs to be done. Four times is
> > > > too many. If solving Marek's desire for PSCI-from-U-Boot means we need
> > > > number 5 that becomes even worse (and I also suspect that's a case of
> > > > one build covers the SoC or family of SoCs depending on hardware
> > > > changes).
> > >
> > > Yes, that's why I took on this effort a few years back.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > You have convinced me that you have a solution. It makes a lot more
> > > > > sense to me than previously and it may be that it is better in the
> > > > > end. For example, with VBE it I would make a lot of sense to build 20
> > > > > boards as just TPL and use a generic rock chip board for everything
> > > > > else. That would be a lot tidier with your scheme. It is very hard to
> > > > > predict the future and VBE is still not finished, some two years in.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't want to be tied to your scheme today though.
> > > > >
> > > > > So if you can accept my going ahead with 1-4 and helping me with that,
> > > > > then we can stop and discuss which way to go, perhaps by prototyping
> > > > > the two options?
> > > >
> > > > I want to start by saying I do appreciate you put in a lot of work in
> > > > this direction already, and I do see some of the end goals it achieves
> > > > as being important, and I'm glad you see my idea has some good parts
> > > > too.
> > > >
> > > > I want to figure out how to move forward on this problem. My other part
> > > > of this thread, this morning, was also part of me looking harder, again,
> > > > at the RFC series you posted before. And that's where I still have large
> > > > reservations. There are *so* *many* symbols we need to now have 4
> > > > variants of, instead of 1 variant of. Take:
> > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230212231638.1134219-58-...@chromium.org/
> > > > for example. It adds SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID but we include <part.h> in
> > > > files built in TPL (and likely VPL) so aren't we going to need that
> > > > every time? And with a quick size-check on pinebook-pro-rk3399 it looks
> > > > like it's not working as intended either? I checked and part_get_info
> > > > shrinks because CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID is not set, or rather:
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
> > > > info->type_guid[0] = 0;
> > > > #endif
> >
> > Oh, I get it now. Previously CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID=y but now
> > CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID=n and while I'm not sure that's a good
> > thing I see what happened. And now I see my problem from yesterday
> > morning was similar but different.
> >
> > > > is not true and checked. And I can't see why. And there's other size
> > > > reductions (this time in tpl) on pinebook-pro-rk3399 that I didn't dig
> > > > in to more, but wasn't that symbol:
> > > > tpl-u-boot-tpl: add: 0/-4, grow: 0/0 bytes: 0/-344 (-344)
> > > > function old new
> > > > delta
> > > > dev_get_uclass_plat 12 -
> > > > -12
> > > > simple_bus_post_bind 92 -
> > > > -92
> > > > _u_boot_list_2_uclass_driver_2_simple_bus 120
> > > > - -120
> > > > _u_boot_list_2_driver_2_simple_bus 120 -
> > > > -120
> > > >
> > > > And I'm not bringing this up to badger you about bugs in an RFC series
> > > > (it's RFC, there's bugs) but rather because I think it highlights some
> > > > core issues with the approach as implemented.
> > >
> > > But surely you can see that both schemes have exactly the same issues?
> > >
> > > My point is that the work to tidy up things and then get to a 'clean'
> > > source tree and Makefiles is the hard bit here and has to be done with
> > > both schemes.
> > >
> > > Just let me know which way you want to go. I don't have anything ready
> > > to send, but I could probably drag it over the line before too long,
> > > if you are keen.
> >
> > Once I figured out what was the cause of the problems I saw in the RFC,
> > I had to rewrite this a few times. Your approach needs even more symbols
> > added than were in the RFC, and the newly added symbols need further
> > auditing to make sure we have the same behavior as today at least by
> > default.
>
> This is the idea that we need to clean up a, b and c. Your scheme is
> the same in this respect. If we have CONFIG_FOO today, then your
> scheme may need that duplicated to each defconfig file. Either you
> resolve the ambiguity or don't. But if you do, then you have to add
> symbols, with both schemes.
There is minimal pain in saying a defconfig needs to list CONFIG_FOO
there is pain in saying that we need to list
config PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
...
config SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
...
config TPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
...
config VPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
...
In what I'm saying it's not generally an issue because:
$ git grep -l PARTITION_TYPE_GUID configs | wc -l
21
And we don't have to do additional upkeep on having N symbols.
> > On the one hand, this is at least a well defined technical
> > problem and if you do the language extension *first* the code changes
> > aren't so bad.
>
> There are no significant Kconfig changes in my scheme, other than the
> conf_nospl file. The language extension is quite separate.
$ git diff pre-RFC-migrate-to-split-config..RFC-migrate-to-split-config
\
| filterdiff -i "a/*/Kconfig" | diffstat -p1 | tail -n 1
25 files changed, 316 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
And that is largely duplication of existing symbols. And again, it
wasn't enough duplication.
> > But for the user running menuconfig / etc? That's not
> > going to be pretty. And we still won't have fixed the problems like "why
> > is TPL even trying to build DWC3?" without reworking more symbols.
> >
> > So I don't think this is the right approach as it doesn't reduce
> > confusion and may increase it (why do I need to set
> > CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID when the code checks for
> > CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID?
>
> Because it is an SPL build...I actually think that makes a lot of
> sense. You just need to understand that CONFIG_SPL_ means the SPL
> build, which in fact is what we have been using for years.
And it's no longer clear in the code, is the problem.
>
> > But why is CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK still there?
>
> Not relevant to the discussion, IMO.
It's an example symbol. Why does the code have:
#ifdef CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID
...
#endif
And that's true for SPL builds. But the code also still has:
#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK
...
#endif
Which is only true for CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK being set.
> > Oh..). The main thing it does is drop $(PHASE_) and I honestly think
> > that's more confusing. We still have one build where we need to do or
> > not do different things for FOO && PPL, FOO && SPL, etc but the code
> > just references CONFIG_FOO but doesn't always mean CONFIG_FOO=y/n in the
> > .config / defconfig.
>
> Yes, that's the conf_nospl file which I have dealt with.
OK? My point is that the code is now more confusing, not less confusing.
Because the code says CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID. Not
CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID. And not IS_ENABLED(PARTITION_TYPE_GUID)
which is at least a hint that one needs to look harder, and oh,
CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID maybe matches somehow.
> > I really think we need to literally split the config files up such that
> > for the most part we do (in psuedo code):
> > %_full_config:
> > make -C $(srctree) O=$(obj)/ppl %_ppl_defconfig
> > make -C $(srctree) O=$(obj)/spl %_spl_defconfig
> > ...
> >
> > all:
> > [ -d $(obj)/ppl ] && make -C $(srctree) O=$(obj)/ppl all
> > [ -d $(obj)/spl ] && make -C $(srctree) O=$(obj)/spl all
> > ...
> >
>
> Perhaps you should take a look at this and come up with an RFC series
> for your scheme? I think that would help us gain a better shared
> understanding of the problem.
>
> Failing that, I am willing and able to do another version of my
> scheme, if it suits.
And how about instead you come up with an RFC of what I suggested, in
order to further your VPL proposal?
Or, have we finally come to it. I can either merge your proposal, which
I have grave reservations about, or you'll just do this all in your
downstream fork? Because no, I don't have time to work on reworking this
for VPL. I don't have the interest in reworking this for VPL. Or should
we come up with some method for the community to vote on what to do
here?
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
