On Friday 18 May 2012 08:58:06 Scott Wood wrote: > On 05/17/2012 03:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On 05/17/2012 01:22 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >> We had problems with (B) regarding TEXT_BASE -- the makefile versions of > >> the config symbols will only be generated once. > >> CONFIG_SKIP_LOW_LEVEL_INIT doesn't seem to be used from makefiles. > >> > >> I still think (C) is the way to go. > > > > But since we have CONFIG_SYS_SPL_TEXT_BASE now, (B) is how we do it > > normally, yes? > > That was more of an instance of "OK, I give in, we'll do it the simple > but ugly way if it's just this one thing" than "the normal way". >
To me it looks like the ugliness comes from an unclear policy resulting in SPL configs being handled in two different ways. IMHO, the policy can be simplified and rationalised in two ways: A) Recognise name each config option that might vary with an SPL and regular variant. That will just lead to hell in the Makefiles. - non inclusive or- C) Each binary has a different config and is built separately. Then there is no need for multiple CONFIGs for the same feature. I have found (C) to work fine for building multiple variants (using a much older version of u-boot). For example, I build two stripped u-boots to run a manufacturing loader process. I thus build at least 3 different u-boots for the same board. Each has a different config and is built separately. I guess common stuff can be rationalised: foo-common.h .... foo-uboot.h #include "foo-common.h" ... foo-spl.h #include "foo-common.h" ... But that really makes for config file proliferation. Still, that would seem more manageable. -- CHarles _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
