On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 03:46:30PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 14:16, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well we only need to add those extra symbols if 1) we want that
> feature in a particular xPL, *and* 2) we don't want it everywhere.Yes, and the problem is adding more of them. Again, we would need to duplicate drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig with your scheme. > There is nothing in my scheme which requires us to add options that > don't currently exist...but there is a problem if some code uses > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FOO) today and some code uses IS_ENABLED(FOO). My That's good because that wasn't (how it seemed?) previously. > conf_nospl file helps with that and avoids changing Kconfig. But > again, if we are using both, then who knows what it means today, and > I'd like to clean it up. What we have today, with respect to CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(...) / IS_ENABLED(...) is clearer than IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO) that is really checking for CONFIG_SPL_FOO or CONFIG_VPL_FOO if it's in SPL or VPL. It's easy to get *wrong* yes, but it's also clear. You're checking for what it says. > > > > 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. > > I wonder if that is stuff that was already applied? Here is what I have today. > > $ glo ci/master..splg4 | filterdiff -i "a/*/Kconfig" | diffstat -p1 | tail > -n 1 > 0 files changed > > You can use the u-boot-dm/splg-working tree to see the original > version. From memory, the splc tree is very old and was mostly applied > or dropped. The splc-working tree is the RFC you pointed at earlier and so yes, what I was comparing with. If you were able to drop some of the problems, that's good. > > > > 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. > > OK I think I understand your question. The tools work by identifying > options which are in PPL and may or not be in other builds. There is > no CONFIG_FRAMEWORK so all of this migration doesn't apply. No, you entirely misunderstand me. I am not talking about the tool. I am talking about the developer. > If there were a CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FRAMEWORK) or a CONFIG_FRAMEWORK > then the discussion would be different. > > BTW, I wonder if we could drop that symbol, or switch it around so > that boards which don't use it have to set CONFIG_SPL_STRANGE or > similar. Touching the PowerPC TPL/SPL stuff is very low on the priority list. If you want to file an issue for it, please do. But that (roughly) is why there's SPL_FRAMEWORK. > > > > Oh..). The main thing it does is drop $(PHASE_) and I honestly think > > > > that's more confusing. We still have one build where we need to do or > > > > not do different things for FOO && PPL, FOO && SPL, etc but the code > > > > just references CONFIG_FOO but doesn't always mean CONFIG_FOO=y/n in the > > > > .config / defconfig. > > > > > > Yes, that's the conf_nospl file which I have dealt with. > > > > OK? My point is that the code is now more confusing, not less confusing. > > Because the code says CONFIG_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID. Not > > CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID. And not IS_ENABLED(PARTITION_TYPE_GUID) > > which is at least a hint that one needs to look harder, and oh, > > CONFIG_SPL_PARTITION_TYPE_GUID maybe matches somehow. > > If you are saying that it is better to have CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FOO), > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO), obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)FOO) etc., then I don't > agree, sorry. That is problems a-c in my original proposal and my > understanding is that both our approaches resolve this problem. > > Otherwise, you've just lost me and we should probably give up on this point. Yes, I am saying that what we have today is less confusing than what you are proposing. Because with your proposal: obj-$(CONFIG_FS_FAT) += fat/ Can refer to CONFIG_SPL_FS_FAT, CONFIG_FS_FAT or CONFIG_VPL_FS_FAT. That is not good for humans. > > > > 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? > > That's unlikely, for two reasons: > > i. We can start with my scheme, get that applied and then still > continue on to your scheme, so we haven't lost anything by doing mine > first > > ii. I still believe my scheme could be the right one, although I have > to admit I would rather look at it again when we get to that point, as > I do have quite a few concerns about the Kconfig complexity of 4), > with my scheme, particularly after this discussion > > > > > 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? > > Or, if you don't want to make time to work on it, why get in the way > of those who are willing to do so? Because I'm reviewing your code and see grave problems? Problems that could be worse than doing nothing? That's why. I will take a look at "splg-working". However, I disagree with your point (i) above in that the reusable work is the script'able work. For example, we've already had feedback that when using $(PHASE_) vs $(XPL_) is confusing. Now we're going to replace that confusion with "why does CONFIG_SPL_FOO sometimes also mean CONFIG_FOO but not others?". -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
