On Saturday, September 17, 2011 12:07:52 AM Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/16/2011 04:47 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Friday, September 16, 2011 11:42:50 PM Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 09/16/2011 04:38 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> On Friday, September 16, 2011 09:49:28 PM Scott Wood wrote: > >>>> Still, this seems hackish. Shouldn't the control be on specific files > >>>> that you include, not directories? > >>> > >>> I don't think so ... why ? > >> > >> That's how the main U-Boot build does it... More specifically, the > >> config.h controls should be on features, and the makefiles should decide > >> which (if any) files are required for that feature. If there are no > >> files from arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/$(CPU) needed, then we get an empty > >> lib$(CPU).o -- nothing special needed to avoid it. > > > > Yes, but you basically _always_ want that CPU support code in ... and I > > have no idea why you'd like to avoid particular files. > > You have no idea why I'd like to be extremely selective with what I > include in a 4K binary?
That I do understand -- but that kind of selection is there. > > It's not about avoiding particular files. It's about including > *nothing* but what is explicitly asked for through some SPL-specific > CONFIG symbol. Maybe that includes everything in arch/$(ARCH)/cpu. > Maybe it includes nothing in there. More likely, it includes just a > fraction of it. The stuff in arch/arm/cpu should be exactly what you need, nothing more ! > > If your answer is gc-sections, why do you need to drop the whole > directory? And why waste time building entire files that we know we > don't want? Why waste time debugging where the sudden bloat came from > instead of getting a simple and clear undefined-symbol error? > > -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
