On Tue Apr 1, 2025 at 4:33 AM IST, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 09:25:04AM +0530, Anshul Dalal wrote: > >> Using CMD_* configs from spl doesn't make logical sense. Therefore this >> patch replaces the checks for CMD_BOOT[IZ] with newly added configs >> SPL_HAS_BOOT[IZ]. >> >> SPL_HAS_BOOTZ is enabled by default for 32-bit ARM systems and >> SPL_HAS_BOOTI is enabled by default for 64-bit ARM and RISCV. This >> ensures configs relying on CMD_BOOT[IZ] in falcon boot still work. >> >> Signed-off-by: Anshul Dalal <ansh...@ti.com> > > OK, so this needs to be introducing some library symbol which then both > CMD_BOOTx and SPL_...something select.
I was thinking of chaning the Makefile with the following diff: -obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTI) += bootm.o image.o +obj-$(CONFIG_LIB_BOOTI) += image.o obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTM) += bootm.o -obj-$(CONFIG_CMD_BOOTZ) += bootm.o zimage.o +obj-$(CONFIG_LIB_BOOTZ) += zimage.o else obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)FRAMEWORK) += spl.o -obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_HAS_BOOTI) += image.o -obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_HAS_BOOTZ) += zimage.o obj-$(CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT) += bootm-fdt.o endif This would simplify the Makefile by not having duplicated configs for image/zimage and the removed bootm.o for non-spl builds should be fine since except for colibri_vf, all defconfigs with CMD_BOOTx already have CMD_BOOTM enabled. And for colibri_vf, we can safely enable CMD_BOOTM? > What we have here introduces > failure to build on some imx8 platforms such as > mx8mp_evk and then size growth on others such as imx28_xea. The imx8mp_evk build should not fail since the patch should only effect falcon mode. Only difference this patch makes is now image.o would not be compiled for the spl which is not used in non falcon boot anyways. For the imx28_xea and 3 other (imx6qdl_icore_mipi|mmc|rqs) defconfigs that use falcon mode but don't make use of CMD_BOOTx. Their size growth is expected since SPL_HAS_BOOTx is default y in falcon boot. To keep the same size, the SPL_HAS_BOOTx can be explicitly disabled for those 4 configs. For future reference is there any CI tests I can run to detect any regressions before posting patches upstream? Regards, Anshul
