Hi Tom, On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 10:17, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 09:24:45AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 07:53, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:51:07PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 14:51, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 02:33:17PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 07:02, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 04:38:50PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 09:00, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 07:07:06PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 18:06, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 05:24:35PM -0700, Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 17:03, Tom Rini > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 04:35:16PM -0700, Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 16:20, Tom Rini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 03:54:52PM -0700, Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 12:26, Tom Rini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 08:19:40AM -0600, Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 06:30:18PM -0700, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 13:40, Tom Rini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 11:13:34AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will look at "splg4" once it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > somewhere on source.denx.de and I can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look at it, and refrain from otherwise > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > assuming how it solves the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problems I had seen previously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I pushed an updated version to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dm/splg-working but it is not very > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > updated. Still needs more work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, after doing the remaining > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_TEXT_BASE -> CONFIG_PPL_TEXT_BASE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes, here's another example of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > problem with your approach. What > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stops xilinx_zynqmp_kria from building in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > splg-working is that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BUTTON was missing from scripts/conf_nospl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Annoyingly, a mrproper (or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since I always use O=, rm -rf) is needed for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes there to be picked > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > up, but that's maybe just a missing Makefile > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dependency line. But that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just makes it easier to see the next problem, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which I don't see the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > answer to. For PPL, we can build > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/spi/zynqmp_gqspi.o just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For SPL however: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CC spl/drivers/spi/zynqmp_gqspi.o > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/spi/zynqmp_gqspi.c: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In function 'zynqmp_qspi_of_to_plat': > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/spi/zynqmp_gqspi.c:203:22: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning: cast to pointer from integer of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 203 | plat->regs = (struct > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zynqmp_qspi_regs *)(dev_read_addr(bus) + > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | ^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /home/trini/work/u-boot/u-boot/drivers/spi/zynqmp_gqspi.c:205:26: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning: cast to pointer from integer of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 205 | plat->dma_regs = (struct > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zynqmp_qspi_dma_regs *) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > | ^ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And I don't see, really, what's even getting > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us down this error path. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the FDT_64BIT in conf_nospl - that symbol > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > needs to be the same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > across all phases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I pushed a new tree which builds without the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > warning. Note that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SPL_SPI is enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, the "what" is FDT_64BIT wasn't correct. I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think this is showing that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > scripts/conf_nospl is going to be a problem in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and of itself, and likely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as confusing if not more-so than any of the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in-the-end visible changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, perhaps the key point I've been trying to get > > > > > > > > > > > > > > across is this confusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, at present we have two types of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a) those for which each phase has its own value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) those for which there is a single value shared > > > > > > > > > > > > > > across all phases > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only way today that you can tell them apart is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by looking for uses > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() and $(PHASE_) with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option. If you see them, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Partially agreed. Those are strong indicators that > > > > > > > > > > > > > both CONFIG_FOO and > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_FOO exist, but not always. We have, > > > > > > > > > > > > > intentionally, both the > > > > > > > > > > > > > inverse case (CONFIG_SPL_BAR and CONFIG_TPL_BAR > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist, CONFIG_BAR does > > > > > > > > > > > > > not) and some future-proofing (CONFIG_SPL_BAZ may > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist in the future, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but not yet). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then the option is a) otherwise it is b). There is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no way to tell from > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kconfig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kconfig will happily allow "depends on BOGUS_SYMBOL" > > > > > > > > > > > > > yes, and a linter > > > > > > > > > > > > > would be a handy thing to have. But you're mentioning > > > > > > > > > > > > > this in another > > > > > > > > > > > > > context, why we need some additional knowledge > > > > > > > > > > > > > somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What I meant was that we don't have anything in the > > > > > > > > > > > > Kconfig for FOO > > > > > > > > > > > > that says this is a global option or an xPL-specific > > > > > > > > > > > > one. We have to > > > > > > > > > > > > hunt for SPL_FOO, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, some parts of the code may use > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an option, some may use IS_ENABLED() for that same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > option. Some may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use $(PHASE_) and some may not. It's a bit of a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mess. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure you can find some examples where we have > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FOO) > > > > > > > > > > > > > and IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO) and it's not intentional, > > > > > > > > > > > > > but that's not a > > > > > > > > > > > > > big deal, and should be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But this is largely the point of my series. It's the > > > > > > > > > > > > reason why > > > > > > > > > > > > qconfig is able to locate these cases and warn about > > > > > > > > > > > > them. It is a big > > > > > > > > > > > > deal, IMO, or at least big enough for me to attempt > > > > > > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm only going to rant slightly that checkpatch.pl > > > > > > > > > > > > > telling people to use > > > > > > > > > > > > > these macros has made the situation worse, not > > > > > > > > > > > > > better, out of an > > > > > > > > > > > > > ingrained need to silence checkpatch.pl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what you're missing is that sometimes we > > > > > > > > > > > > > intentionally don't want > > > > > > > > > > > > > $(PHASE_), or would need to rewrite the Makefile to > > > > > > > > > > > > > make use of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > fs/Makefile is an example of this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The next step from my side would be to get rid of the > > > > > > > > > > > > 'ifdef > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_XPL_BUILD' in the Makefiles. It's confusing and > > > > > > > > > > > > annoying. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stepping back a bit, perhaps the goal of my series > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is to identify > > > > > > > > > > > > > > options in b) so we can deal with them in a better > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way. They are all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > listed in conf_nospl, in preparation for some > > > > > > > > > > > > > > future action. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two big problems here. The first of which > > > > > > > > > > > > > is that conf_nospl, > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a concept, is going to be incomplete. Do you list > > > > > > > > > > > > > every CMD in there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? They'll never be in a non-PPL phase. It will be > > > > > > > > > > > > > its own nightmare > > > > > > > > > > > > > to keep correct, once it is bug-compatible with what > > > > > > > > > > > > > we have today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is actually the *nice* thing about conf_nospl. We > > > > > > > > > > > > should reduce > > > > > > > > > > > > it to empty, just like we did with the Kconfig > > > > > > > > > > > > whitelist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have this rule: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > libs-$(CONFIG_CMDLINE) += cmd/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is enough for most things. The only issue is that > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes, > > > > > > > > > > > > e.g. with CONFIG_CMD_DHCP it doesn't mean the command > > > > > > > > > > > > at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So I don't agree at all that my series is a 'big > > > > > > > > > > > > problem'. It is a > > > > > > > > > > > > solution to the current confusion and it shows up what > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken and > > > > > > > > > > > > needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The second big problem is that it doesn't make it any > > > > > > > > > > > > > easier to solve > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I keep calling the DWC3 problem. It's a valid > > > > > > > > > > > > > use case that two > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers have hit independently of wanting to > > > > > > > > > > > > > enable USB gadget > > > > > > > > > > > > > support (and the HW uses DWC3) in SPL and not PPL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only are you not > > > > > > > > > > > > > solving this problem, it gets worse to solve. Today > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's "OK, I need to > > > > > > > > > > > > > find where to move obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) to be more > > > > > > > > > > > > > visible and > > > > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)FOO". Tomorrow it's "Why isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_FOO) > > > > > > > > > > > > > working here but not there?". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that because some Makefile higher in the hierarchy > > > > > > > > > > > > is not building > > > > > > > > > > > > that subdir? I don't know what this is about. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, at absolute best case here, we're making a lot > > > > > > > > > > > > > of changes and > > > > > > > > > > > > > spending a lot of time to not really address the > > > > > > > > > > > > > underlying problems, > > > > > > > > > > > > > just making some questionable value visibility > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes. We could reduce > > > > > > > > > > > > > ourselves to one macro by saying only ever use > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FOO) > > > > > > > > > > > > > and IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO) goes back to an ifdef for > > > > > > > > > > > > > the case where it > > > > > > > > > > > > > must only be tested on CONFIG_FOO. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or we could finish and apply my series, which does this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm 80% sure we could simplify all of > > > > > > > > > > > > > $(PHASE_)/$(XPL_)/$(SPL_) down to just $(PHASE_) and > > > > > > > > > > > > > that eliminates the > > > > > > > > > > > > > which to use of those question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, let's apply my series, which actually gets rid > > > > > > > > > > > > of PHASE_, SPL_ > > > > > > > > > > > > and XPL_ altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And update / expand upon the existing > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation we have as it's not clear enough for > > > > > > > > > > > > > everyone. Then we can > > > > > > > > > > > > > think, again, about how to solve the problems that > > > > > > > > > > > > > are introduced by > > > > > > > > > > > > > building our entire source tree N times from a single > > > > > > > > > > > > > configuration > > > > > > > > > > > > > file. Or if we need to do something radical there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point I'm getting the feeling that you imagine > > > > > > > > > > > > my series is > > > > > > > > > > > > some grand unified plan for Kconfig. It really isn't > > > > > > > > > > > > and this thread > > > > > > > > > > > > is reminding me of why I originally wrote it. Bear in > > > > > > > > > > > > mind it was over > > > > > > > > > > > > two years ago and I have mostly forgotten all the > > > > > > > > > > > > issues. It is a > > > > > > > > > > > > clean-up series. It isn't the second coming but it > > > > > > > > > > > > isn't the > > > > > > > > > > > > antichrist either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I worry you're going to spend another month of effort to > > > > > > > > > > > get this to 1:1 > > > > > > > > > > > compatibility (modulo fixing bugs) with what we have > > > > > > > > > > > today and get > > > > > > > > > > > disappointed once it rolls out to -next. But I guess I've > > > > > > > > > > > already spent > > > > > > > > > > > too much time trying to convince you this is a bad idea > > > > > > > > > > > and that your > > > > > > > > > > > cure is worse than the disease. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me the core issue is whether to completely split the > > > > > > > > > > defconfig > > > > > > > > > > files. I am quite worried about that. You are quite worried > > > > > > > > > > about the > > > > > > > > > > confusion my series will cause. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is reasonable, if we go with my series, that I > > > > > > > > > > drive > > > > > > > > > > conf_nospl down to zero lines (and remove the feature) > > > > > > > > > > before going > > > > > > > > > > any further. Would that make you more comfortable? It would > > > > > > > > > > be a fair > > > > > > > > > > bit of work, but could be done over a few releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is my core concern. Can macros be tricky? Yes. Do we > > > > > > > > > need a > > > > > > > > > checkpatch.pl test for 'IS_ENABLED(FOO)' ? Yes. But the real > > > > > > > > > problem is > > > > > > > > > bugs like: > > > > > > > > > - Take pinebook-pro-rk3399_defconfig > > > > > > > > > - Enable all 3 of: CONFIG_SPL_USB_DWC3_GENERIC > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_USB_GADGET > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_USB_SDP_SUPPORT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your proposal neither fixes that bug nor makes it easier to > > > > > > > > > understand > > > > > > > > > why that bug happens. And this is the category of build > > > > > > > > > problems that we > > > > > > > > > get that aren't "you missed using the right macro". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Honestly, what on earth does this have to do with my series? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's that your series doesn't address the real problems we keep > > > > > > > having. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem happens before and after my series, from what I can > > > > > > > > tell. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've said that numerous times. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want these sorts of combinations to be tested, perhaps > > > > > > > > add a > > > > > > > > board that enables them, or even rethink your opposition to my > > > > > > > > buildman proposal?[4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This isn't relevant to the point I've raised several times now. > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > failure mode above was reported by two different developers, > > > > > > > neither of > > > > > > > whom saw how to correctly solve the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > That surprises me a little, as the problem seems pretty fundamental. > > > > > > If you don't enable USB_GADGET, then symbols which depend on it > > > > > > don't > > > > > > exist. > > > > > > > > > > But they don't want USB_GADGET in PPL. They only want it in SPL. > > > > > > > > That seems to be splitting hairs, but OK. So why not make > > > > USB_GADGET_MANUFACTURER depend on USB_GADGET || SPL_USB_GADGET ? > > > > > > Yes, the solution today involves reworking drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig so > > > that USB_GADGET_MANUFACTURER, USB_GADGET_VENDOR_NUM, > > > USB_GADGET_PRODUCT_NUM, USB_GADGET_VBUS_DRAW and that might be it, are > > > exposed to USB_GADGET || SPL_USB_GADGET and possibly down the line > > > VPL_USB_GADGET. > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > It wouldn't make sense to add SPL_USB_GADGET_MANUFACTURER as surely it > > > > would be the same value? This is once good thing about what we have: > > > > we can share values between phases without typing them in separately. > > > > > > Most of these should be, there may or may not be the questionable case > > > where one of the ID changes so the host knows what stage things are at. > > > But that's just an aside. > > > > > > My point is that drivers/usb/gadget/Kconfig is yet another case where we > > > need to make it much more complicated so that it works for all the use > > > cases. And that it's a more common and harder for developers to fix > > > problem than "Do I use $(SPL_TPL_) I mean $(PHASE_) or $(XPL_) in the > > > Makefile?" > > > > Yes, I understand that, but this is a tradeoff between that complexity > > and the one we would introduce by splitting the defconfigs. Given all > > the Kconfig churn it would require just to get things to work, it > > isn't a clear win, to say the least. > > Since we would be removing stuff from Kconfig with the larger idea I > proposed, I'm not sure what you mean. We wouldn't have this problem at > all with the larger idea.
But we have other problems, mainly that we cannot easily use an option from one phase in another, so need to duplicate all such options, then add tooling to try to keep them in sync, except when we don't want them in sync, etc. Are you sure you have thought this through all the way? > > > > > > > > And again, if you tried to solve this problem on your series you > > > > > > > might > > > > > > > see how what you're proposing will make things worse, not better. > > > > > > > > > > > > At least with my scheme you can do something like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > config SPL_USB_GADGET > > > > > > bool "USB Gadget Support in SPL" > > > > > > depends on USB_GADGET > > > > > > > > > > That symbol already exists. The problems are around all of the gadget > > > > > symbols that don't exist. > > > > > > > > OK. But we have to move in steps. We can't do everything at once. > > > > > > Yes, which is why we have so many of these duplicative symbols > > > (USB_GADGET, SPL_USB_GADGET) and keep needing to add more. > > > > Yes, I don't like it either. I believe that if I had been able to land > > my solution last time, we would be having different discussions by > > now, e.g. how to tidy up the Kconfig without changing the build > > system. > > I strongly doubt it. I know you do, but I could be right about this. > > > > > > > I normally make the SPL symbols depend on PPL, since it normally > > > > > > doesn't make a lot of sense to have the feature in SPL unless it is > > > > > > in > > > > > > PPL. Is this an exception to that rule? > > > > > > > > > > This half of the problem (you're still missing the other half of the > > > > > problem, the DWC3 code being built in TPL now and throwing > > > > > warnings-turned-error with -Werror and then discarded at link time) is > > > > > one of many examples where we keep having to duplicate symbols in > > > > > Kconfig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we do go ahead and enhance Kconfig, then we can combine the two > > > > > > symbols, which is something. > > > > > > > > > > Or, we go the direction I suggested instead. Where we never duplicate > > > > > symbols, because we never need to anymore. > > > > > > > > > > Or, we step back because believe you're missing the bigger problems. > > > > > > > > At this point I'm not sure where to go. You are determined to split > > > > the defconfig files and have grace concerns about my schema. Vice > > > > versa for me. > > > > > > > > But my scheme takes us forward without needing to split the > > > > defconfigs. It does offer some benefits IMO. Once we split the > > > > defconfigs we can never put them back together. > > > > > > My continued strongest preference is to do the minimal effort to better > > > document what we are doing today and add the missing tooling so we don't > > > keep getting wrong macros in the code. > > > > I did actually do the tooling in qconfig - give it a try and see what > > you think. For documentation, we can discuss that as part of myt > > series. > > The missing tooling is things like: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20250226153346.2736160-1-tr...@konsulko.com/ Well that's good to have anyway. > > I'm not sure what qconfig features you're talking about. It is qconfig --scan-source which prints a lot of warnings. > > > > If you're hellbent on doing this > > > and do it against master and not your personal tree, I'm expecting you > > > to be available to help clarify problems for developers if they report > > > them. > > > > That's fine. I do my development on my own tree, but once I actually > > do the series and it is reviewed, I can do a version against -next. As > > you know, there are a lot of moving parts, so I would want it to go in > > quickly to avoid a lot of rework. > > Just don't post things that aren't against next, when you have something > as that makes review impossible for the rest of us. I had thought we agreed that to minimise differences you would review patches that I sent from my tree? Anyway I'm going to do what you suggest and see how it goes. Regards, Simon
