Hi Tom,
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 10:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:43:10AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 08:16, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 06:19:05AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 13:34, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 07:48:17AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 18:07, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:03:08PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 07:46, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:08:40AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 17:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:39:37PM -0700, Simon Glass
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 13:17, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:47:32PM -0600, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 12:34:01PM -0700, Simon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 12:22, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 12:11:12PM -0700, Simon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 11:50, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 03:22:22PM -0600,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Rini 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets come back up here, to my proposal,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since parts of it seem to have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not been clear enough. While what I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposing should work for any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > platform and xPL -> xPL -> ... -> PPL, for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this example let us assume
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399 supports the flow of TPL
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -> SPL -> PPL. Also, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compare with today, it will be helpful to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > run "make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_current
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_config" and have the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resulting .config file available.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There shall be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configs/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will contain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lines such as:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_ARM=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_ARCH_ROCKCHIP=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3399=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you run "make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the resulting .config file will contain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lines such as:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > # CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_EXTERNAL_TPL is not set
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as this only makes sense in the context of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > building something that will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be TPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A more complex example is that it will also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contain:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because looking at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile a bunch of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be able to be simplified (and spl_common.c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be renamed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > xpl_common.c) to:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) +=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > spl.o spl-boot-order.o xpl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) +=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tpl.o xpl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The .config file here will also contain:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_DM_SERIAL=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What it will not contain is:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL_DM_SERIAL=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is because there is no 'config
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TPL_DM_SERIAL' option in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/serial/Kconfig anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you next run "make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl all" the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > results in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl would be similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the results as under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399/tpl/" when building
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The contents of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configs/rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the tpl one, except with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL-only-ever-valid options such as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD=y but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise have CONFIG_DM_SERIAL=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and no CONFIG_SPL_DM_SERIAL=y, and when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > building the "all" target, you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would only get similar results to what is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > under the spl/ directory
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Next we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configs/rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you run "make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_ppl
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig" the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important difference is what you do not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have. You do not have:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL=y
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because we are not building SPL nor TPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We're just making full U-Boot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > itself. This is where in more full examples
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and with additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > restructure a "generic-arm64_ppl_defconfig"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > makes sense and be used
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This brings up what to do with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "ockpro64-rk3399_defconfig". And I'm a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > little unsure which of the things I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentioned above is best. It's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Does not exist, top-level Makefile says
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > roughly:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > %_defconfig: %_tpl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > %_spl_defconfig %_ppl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/tpl %_tpl_defconfig all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/spl %_spl_defconfig all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/ppl %_ppl_defconfig all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this might be too rigid.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) It contains:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PHASE:VPL:rockpro64-rk3399_vpl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PHASE:TPL:rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PHASE:SPL:rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PHASE:PPL:rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And the top-level Makefile looks like:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > %_defconfig:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > grep -q ^PHASE $@ || fatal "Invalid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defconfig file, please see..."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > foreach line in $@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/$PHASE $CONFIGFILE all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It could also be some other suggestion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for writing that up. It is somewhat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clearer.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens to the Makefiles? Do they still
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have $(PHASE_) in them?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Because CONFIG_SPL_FIT would never exist,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)FIT)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be meaningless. Only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig would say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_FIT=y (or more likely, only the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resulting .config would say
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_FIT=y just like how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > configs/rockpro64-rk3399_defconfig doesn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > say CONFIG_FIT=y nor CONFIG_SPL_FIT=y).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But just above you said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe this proposal will lead to the code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and Makefiles being less
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clear than they are today. The line:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)BLK) +=
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > block/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will become:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_BLK) += block/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without being clear that it could reference
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > either full U-Boot (PPL) or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some xPL phase. While the same Makefile will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continue to have (comments
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my own):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obj-y += mtd/ # Subdirectory Makefiles control
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build contents
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_MULTIPLEXER) += mux/ # Only valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for PPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And so the situation for humans will be worse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > off than today because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while $(PHASE_) and $(XPL_) are confusing at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > times, they make it clear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what can and cannot be enabled in PPL vs xPL.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doing "something" is not better than doing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nothing in this case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So why is OK for your proposal to drop the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $(PHASE_) stuff, but not mine?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because your proposal keeps CONFIG_SPL_BLK (and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > config SPL_BLK) and has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a .config file which says "CONFIG_SPL_BLK=y" but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mine doesn't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > With my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal "I have a problem, and I want to see what my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL build has with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BLK=y. I can see hits in the source tree for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BLK, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > symbol I set, I can solve my problem."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There will be at least some matches, e.g.
> > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_BLK in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > defconfig files and 'config SPL_BLK' in the source tree.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and that's confusing. I am arguing that your
> > > > > > > > > > > statement is more
> > > > > > > > > > > confusing than $(PHASE_)BLK is.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or to try and explain differently, with your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal "I have a problem,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I want to see what builds with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_BLK=y. Why is there no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > match in the source tree for CONFIG_SPL_BLK or even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL_BLK". With my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > proposal "I have a problem, and I want to see what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my SPL build has with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BLK=y. I can see hits in the source tree for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BLK, the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > symbol I set, I can solve my problem."
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Well, CONFIG_BLK will be in the source tree; it just
> > > > > > > > > > > > means different
> > > > > > > > > > > > things for different phases.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And it will be, with your proposal, controlled by BLK or
> > > > > > > > > > > SPL_BLK or
> > > > > > > > > > > TPL_BLK or VPL_BLK in the .config file but only
> > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_BLK in Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > and code.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It sounds like you want to get rid of the xPL prefixes
> > > > > > > > > > > > for Kconfig
> > > > > > > > > > > > options, and that overrides all other considerations?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's one of the big problems we have today, and
> > > > > > > > > > > splc-working shows how
> > > > > > > > > > > much further the duplication must go. It's why I
> > > > > > > > > > > suggested the language
> > > > > > > > > > > modification before.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My other try here was a bit unclear actually because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the confusion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > state your proposal gives us. Try try again directly,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the problem is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that CONFIG_SPL_BLK will be set (or unset) but not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > referenced in code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This will be true for many but not all SPL symbols as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD for example will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > still exist and need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to be referenced. This is a more confusing state than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > $(PHASE_). $(XPL_)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think can just be replaced with $(PHASE_) but I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > haven't confirmed (I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think it does show that the old way was confusing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > however).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I think I see. You don't want people to have to
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'know' that
> > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_xPL_xxx is used to control feature xxx in each
> > > > > > > > > > > > xPL build?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm saying they have to know that, and also know which
> > > > > > > > > > > symbols that's
> > > > > > > > > > > not true for. And that is more confusing than today. I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > saying that
> > > > > > > > > > > compared with today's arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile the
> > > > > > > > > > > following is
> > > > > > > > > > > worse:
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > index 5e7edc99cdc4..3b176966f75b 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> > > > > > > > > > > endif
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (And CONFIG_TPL_RAM and CONFIG_SPL_RAM still exist).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And this is better:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > index 5e7edc99cdc4..23c30f68f878 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -7,15 +7,13 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer
> > > > > > > > > > > pointing to
> > > > > > > > > > > # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper
> > > > > > > > > > > assumes that
> > > > > > > > > > > # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the
> > > > > > > > > > > U-Boot stack).
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > spl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > spl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > -ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > # Always include boot_mode.o, as we bypass it (i.e. turn
> > > > > > > > > > > it off)
> > > > > > > > > > > # inside of boot_mode.c when
> > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is 0. This way,
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -23,14 +21,13 @@ ifeq
> > > > > > > > > > > ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > > > > > > > > # meaning "turn it off".
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-y += boot_mode.o
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += board.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -endif
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> > > > > > > > > > > -endif
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +ifdef CONFIG_PPL
> > > > > > > > > > > +# TODO: Audit these Makefiles see if they really must be
> > > > > > > > > > > PPL only
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -46,10 +43,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) +=
> > > > > > > > > > > rk3568/
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/
> > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > -# Clear out SPL objects, in case this is a TPL build
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) =
> > > > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > -# Now add SPL/TPL objects back into the main build
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD) += $(obj-spl-y)
> > > > > > > > > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) += $(obj-tpl-y)
> > > > > > > > > > > +endif
> > > > > > > > > > > (CONFIG_SPL_RAM and CONFIG_TPL_RAM no longer exist as
> > > > > > > > > > > options).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This Makefile is a very strange example. I've thought about
> > > > > > > > > > cleaning
> > > > > > > > > > it up a few times, but then I know someone will say it
> > > > > > > > > > needs to be in
> > > > > > > > > > its own series, etc. so I've never got around to it. Even
> > > > > > > > > > with the
> > > > > > > > > > current xPL stuff (i.e. making CONFIG_SPL_BUILD mean just
> > > > > > > > > > SPL) it is
> > > > > > > > > > needlessly complex.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There's some complexity that can be removed here today,
> > > > > > > > > maybe. But not a
> > > > > > > > > lot of it, because it's complex to build three different
> > > > > > > > > things when
> > > > > > > > > configuring once.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyway, with my scheme, you can still use
> > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD if you want to. It adds
> > > > > > > > > > SPL_ versions
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. You have to use it still, with yours. Because
> > > > > > > > > "ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD", "SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD" and
> > > > > > > > > "TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD" are the same concept of "use
> > > > > > > > > common board
> > > > > > > > > code" but different files at TPL, SPL and PPL. And you still
> > > > > > > > > have to
> > > > > > > > > with mine, because for the same reason. With mine, the
> > > > > > > > > Kconfig is:
> > > > > > > > > config SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD
> > > > > > > > > bool "SPL rockchip common board file"
> > > > > > > > > depends on SPL
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > config TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD
> > > > > > > > > bool "TPL rockchip common board file"
> > > > > > > > > depends on TPL
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And since you are only ever configuring for TPL or SPL or PPL
> > > > > > > > > (or VPL or
> > > > > > > > > ...) the resulting config only ever asks for the appropriate
> > > > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > of symbols to autoconf_spl.h for this reason. There are
> > > > > > > > > > also places in
> > > > > > > > > > the code where people directly check CONFIG_SPL_xxx and
> > > > > > > > > > these need to
> > > > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, this is part of the confusion I keep noting with your
> > > > > > > > > proposal as
> > > > > > > > > it will be inconsistent for which symbols CONFIG_SPL_xxx is
> > > > > > > > > referred to
> > > > > > > > > in code as CONFIG_SPL_xxx or as CONFIG_xxx.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If it is confusing, we can change all of them to CONFIG_xxx in a
> > > > > > > > follow-up. There is no need to mention SPL_, it just allows the
> > > > > > > > existing code to work without a wholesale change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, that's not correct. Please look again at what I've written
> > > > > > > explaining why.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This surprised me:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you saying you are OK with this one, instead of, for
> > > > > > > > > > example:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If so, why are you OK with that and not the others?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Because there is no:
> > > > > > > > > config TPL_RAM
> > > > > > > > > bool "RAM driver in TPL"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > in what I am proposing. That's why. There's one symbol
> > > > > > > > > because there's
> > > > > > > > > the same files being built.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, well that works the same for my scheme too. Either will do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't see how that can work in your scheme.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here is the full Kconfig for that file, with my scheme:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > > > #
> > > > > > # Copyright (c) 2014 Google, Inc
> > > > > > # Copyright (c) 2019 Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # We don't want the bootrom-helper present in a full U-Boot build,
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer pointing to
> > > > > > # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper assumes that
> > > > > > # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the U-Boot stack).
> > > > > > obj-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > > > obj-spl-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o
> > > > > > spl-boot-order.o
> > > > > > spl_common.o
> > > > > > obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > > > obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> > > > > > obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obj-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Always include boot_mode.o, as we bypass it (i.e. turn it off)
> > > > > > # inside of boot_mode.c when CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is 0.
> > > > > > This way,
> > > > > > # we can have the preprocessor correctly recognise both 0x0 and 0
> > > > > > # meaning "turn it off".
> > > > > > obj-y += boot_mode.o
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += board.o
> > > > > > endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> > > > > > endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > > >
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3128) += rk3128/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3188) += rk3188/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK322X) += rk322x/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288) += rk3288/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3308) += rk3308/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3328) += rk3328/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3368) += rk3368/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3399) += rk3399/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) += rk3568/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Clear out SPL objects, in case this is a TPL build
> > > > > > obj-spl-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) =
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # Now add SPL/TPL objects back into the main build
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD) += $(obj-spl-y)
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) += $(obj-tpl-y)
> > > > > > <<<<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only change is the line that was:
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)RAM) += sdram.o
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's also what I showed via unified diff format earlier, and
> > > > > so I
> > > > > agree.
> > > >
> > > > OK good.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For this one:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o
> > > > > > > > > > > spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't understand how it can work with your scheme, since
> > > > > > > > > > you don't
> > > > > > > > > > want to have any CONFIG_SPL_ things?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, that's not what I've been saying and trying to make clear
> > > > > > > > > with my
> > > > > > > > > examples. I keep saying that there are explicitly SPL (or TPL
> > > > > > > > > or VPL)
> > > > > > > > > only options. And these need to be named as such. And so
> > > > > > > > > that's the
> > > > > > > > > confusion your proposal introduces (inconsistency about
> > > > > > > > > referring to a
> > > > > > > > > symbol that has been enabled) and mine removes entirely (we
> > > > > > > > > only ever
> > > > > > > > > refer to symbols based on their name).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Right, but you still have 'config SPL_RAM', right? Would you
> > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, again, I do not. Please re-read my proposal as you seem to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > making the same incorrect assumptions about it, and then saying
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > your scheme would also do that. They are very much not at all the
> > > > > > > same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we have reached the limits of email on this one, but I am
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > confused about your scheme. I suggested that you don't have
> > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ things and you said tht was wrong. Then I asked if you
> > > > > > still have SPL_RAM and you said you don't. Let me try this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Q: In your scheme, do you have 'config SPL_RAM' and CONFIG_SPL_RAM,
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > do you not?
> > > > >
> > > > > In my scheme we do not have 'config SPL_RAM' nor CONFIG_SPL_RAM as
> > > > > there
> > > > > is no case where 'config RAM' and 'CONFIG_RAM' is incorrect. Because
> > > > > we
> > > > > are never configuring and building for more than one phase.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my scheme we do have 'config SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD and
> > > > > 'CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD' because they are NOT the same thing
> > > > > as 'config ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD' and 'CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD'
> > > > > (and again for TPL_...). They control different code. While
> > > > > technically
> > > > > possible, I am arguing against overloading ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD and
> > > > > having the Makefile have to do some two part check like we have today,
> > > > > as those are one of the pain points of adding new code.
> > > >
> > > > OK I think I have some sort of understanding now.
> > > >
> > > > Here is the patch that works for me (on top of your patch above). Note
> > > > that we don't have to make those changes, but they show how my scheme
> > > > is different in what it expects:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > index 23c30f68f87..0593e028de4 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> > > > @@ -7,27 +7,35 @@
> > > > # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer pointing to
> > > > # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper assumes that
> > > > # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the U-Boot stack).
> > > > +ifdef CONFIG_XPL_BUILD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > +endif
> > > > +ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> > > > spl_common.o
> > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > +endif
> > > > +ifdef CONFIG_TPL_BUILD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> > > > +endif
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
> > > >
> > > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > +
> > > > # Always include boot_mode.o, as we bypass it (i.e. turn it off)
> > > > # inside of boot_mode.c when CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is 0. This
> > > > way,
> > > > # we can have the preprocessor correctly recognise both 0x0 and 0
> > > > # meaning "turn it off".
> > > > obj-y += boot_mode.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += board.o
> > > > +endif
> > > >
> > > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> > > > +endif
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > >
> > > > -ifdef CONFIG_PPL
> > > > -# TODO: Audit these Makefiles see if they really must be PPL only
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/
> > > > @@ -43,4 +51,3 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) += rk3568/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/
> > > > -endif
> > > > --
> > > > 2.43.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's the full file:
> > > >
> > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > #
> > > > # Copyright (c) 2014 Google, Inc
> > > > # Copyright (c) 2019 Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd.
> > > >
> > > > # We don't want the bootrom-helper present in a full U-Boot build, as
> > > > # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer pointing to
> > > > # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper assumes that
> > > > # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the U-Boot stack).
> > > > ifdef CONFIG_XPL_BUILD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> > > > endif
> > > > ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> > > > spl_common.o
> > > > endif
> > > > ifdef CONFIG_TPL_BUILD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> > > > endif
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
> > > >
> > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > >
> > > > # Always include boot_mode.o, as we bypass it (i.e. turn it off)
> > > > # inside of boot_mode.c when CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is 0. This
> > > > way,
> > > > # we can have the preprocessor correctly recognise both 0x0 and 0
> > > > # meaning "turn it off".
> > > > obj-y += boot_mode.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += board.o
> > > > endif
> > > >
> > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> > > > endif
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3128) += rk3128/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3188) += rk3188/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK322X) += rk322x/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288) += rk3288/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3308) += rk3308/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3328) += rk3328/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3368) += rk3368/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3399) += rk3399/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) += rk3568/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/
> > > >
> > > > So we need CONFIG_SPL_BUILD when using a
> > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD option which I agree looks strange.
> > > >
> > > > We can't do this with my scheme:
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> > > > spl_common.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> > >
> > > You can't do that with any scheme, to be clear. I don't know why you're
> > > mentioning it.
> >
> > Just so we have a baseline.
> >
> > >
> > > > since that will compile both targets into whatever phases are enabled.
> > > >
> > > > To me, the ifdef I have above is less confusing than that, but I would
> > > > actually prefer this:
> > > >
> > > > ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> > > > endif
> > >
> > > That would be less bad than what you've had earlier, yes. But I think
> > > mine is still clearer.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > > > Anyway, this is a strange case and I don't think it is a huge deal. In
> > >
> > > Yes, but it's not the only case like this, it's just the first one that
> > > came to mind.
> >
> > I've not seen that sort of construct (spl-xxx += ...) in U-Boot
> > before, so I don't think it is common. I am sure there are others, but
> > my scheme does work with existing Makefiles.
>
> It's one of many examples of the workarounds needed for "do we want this
> object in all phases or just some phases".
You're being too negative IMO. Most of the time the right thing
happens. Yes there are corner cases but I believe you are
mischaracterising my scheme.
>
> > > > general, when you enable an option for some phases you get that code
> > > > in those phases. When you actually *don't* want the code in a
> > > > particular phase, either don't set the option, or add another
> > > > condition.
> > >
> > > And your proposal doesn't solve that problem, still. Go back up in the
> > > thread and see the DWC3 example I wanted to see if was still broken, and
> > > is still broken.
> >
> > What is broken about it? Are you using the old series? I don't see any
> > changes to the Makefile there in my new series.
>
> I summarized things in the email there. And yes, your series does not
> address and seemingly makes even worse, the problem of
> including/excluding DWC3 from different phases.
But I really don't know what is wrong with DWC3, honest! When I build
pinebook-pro-rk3399 I don't actually see any drivers/usb in SPL,
neither before or after my series. So can you please explain in a bit
more detail what you are getting at? The latest version is at splg4 in
my tree, although it's not finished.
>
> > > > After all, the current Makefile code is actually a bit of a
> > > > workaround. Any scheme is going to have drawbacks.
> > >
> > > Yes, there's lots of workarounds. My scheme removes all of those
> > > workarounds once complete. What phase is being configured and built is a
> > > strict "pick 1 from N" and so we do not have CONFIG_SPL_BUILD,
> > > CONFIG_TPL_BUILD, CONFIG_XPL_BUILD, etc.
> >
> > Yes, I think that's right. For the most part my scheme will do the
> > same, but there will be exceptions, like the rockchip one.
>
> If you're referring to arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile that could be
> rewritten, today, to be a little less cumbersome. It is still an example
> of the tricky workarounds that are needed for including/excluding
> objects based on phases, and is another example of how your series would
> not make adding a new phase easier.
It makes it easier because you don't have to add loads of plumbing to
get a new phase. Also, with Kconfig changes, adding a phase could
become just a Kconfig thing, with everything else downstream of that,
There would be no need to add completely new Kconfig symbols for every
feature.
>
> > > > With my scheme, I want to have the options for all phases in each
> > > > autoconf_xpl.h so that you can check an option for one phase in
> > > > another. That is part of my intent to (as now) have a single Kconfig
> > > > which covers every option in every phase. The down-side of that is
> > > > that you have to be aware of it.
> > >
> > > Yes, and we're going to violate a whole lot of "least surprise" rules
> > > by changing how something we've borrowed from a much larger and more
> > > popular project works (and also how other projects which borrow it
> > > work).
> >
> > I don't agree with that. Linux only builds a single build. We are
> > always going to have to do more here than Linux. Also Linux has no
> > interest in taking our Kbuild patches and incidentally, held out
> > against FIT for 10 years! Linux will do what it wants to do. This is
> > U-Boot.
>
> Again, I am proposing we only do a single build.
>
> And yes, this is U-Boot where one of our key attractions is "It's just
> like working in the Linux Kernel, which you're likely already familiar
> with". So "Ah, but CONFIG_FOO doesn't mean CONFIG_FOO!" will violate
> that, badly.
It means CONFIG_FOO for the phase being built, the same as your
scheme. From that POV all we are really talking about is the style of
plumbing.
If I could think of a way to express things differently in Kconfig, I
would do that. I did suggest at the start some possible extensions,
but you don't want those either.
>
> > > > This did get me thinking though, whether with my scheme we could
> > > > (later) change Kconfig so that there is an SPL symbol, which is only
> > > > true when building SPL. Basically we would change the existing SPL to
> > > > HAVE_SPL, and SPL_BUILD to SPL. But we could put the 'new' SPL into
> > > > Kconfig, so you can depend on it, etc. Lots of options have 'depends
> > > > on SPL' which would mean 'depends on HAVE_SPL', but we could just
> > > > leave them as they are.
> > > >
> > > > So then you could use
> > > >
> > > > config SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD
> > > > depends on SPL
> > > >
> > > > config TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD
> > > > depends on TPL
> > > >
> > > > and this would work:
> > > >
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> > > > spl_common.o
> > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> > > >
> > > > But there is a down-side. Because SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD is not
> > > > enabled in the TPL build, TPL will not have visibility into that
> > > > option. We have effectively moved closer to your scheme: still with a
> > > > unified Kconfig, but completely split in the source code. Still, we
> > > > can control that, by having (for example) SPL_TEXT_BASE depend on the
> > > > new HAVE_SPL instead of SPL. That way, CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE it will
> > > > appear in all builds.
> > >
> > > Yes, that sounds like it will make some of the existing complex logic
> > > even more complex, and I'm not sure of the benefit.
> >
> > Trying to split the difference between our schemes. I'm going to call
> > this 'option A' for my scheme.
> >
> > >
> > > > We also have to run the 'conf' tool multiple times.
> > >
> > > And to be clear, with my scheme that's a requirement since we're only
> > > building and configuring a single phase. The files I've described with
> > > "PHASE:XPL:file" are a nice-to-have on top bit, and not required
> > > especially if it leads to confusion while discussing things.
> >
> > Yes, understood.
> >
> > Basically I think both schemes work. At present I think we should go
> > with my scheme now, since it is pretty close to being complete and
> > involves minimal change to the existing Kconfig, then either do option
> > A, or decide to split the Kconfig completely, i.e. your scheme. It
> > seems that you believe my scheme is worse than the status quo, though,
> > right?
>
> I think we need to come up with some way to get the community to vote on
> your scheme or status quo. I don't think your scheme is "pretty close"
> to being complete and I think it will make things worse than doing
> nothing. I was hoping to get you to think about implementing what I
> proposed instead, but since I still don't think you've understood it,
> that's not an option either.
I just don't like splitting the defconfig into completely different
files. I know that will open up all sorts of issues. For example, how
will this code work?:
ulong spl_get_image_text_base(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_VPL
if (xpl_next_phase() == PHASE_VPL)
return CONFIG_VPL_TEXT_BASE;
#endif
return xpl_next_phase() == PHASE_SPL ? CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE :
CONFIG_TEXT_BASE;
}
> But imagine you aren't interested in
> hearing No and not doing it, again.
Not particularly, but I could just do nothing on this.
>
> > How much work do you think your scheme would entail?
>
> Not sure.
I could probably take a look and try to guess.
Regards,
Simon
