On 10/11/2012 4:15 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:27:09AM +0200, stefano babic wrote:
[snip]
One reason to move into the board directory is that there was a decision
to move rules related to only one arch or SOC where they belong to, that
is in the corresponding arch/ or board/ directory.
I'll admit that maybe my make-fu is off, but that idea doesn't work, at
least for SPL. So I'd really like someone to make that work first.
2. Easy to clean the temporary generated file. The main Makefile
deletes files with .pcfgtmp extension.
3. The file referred to by boards.cfg actually exists before the build
starts.
This is true, but I do not understand which is the advantage. A lot of
files are generated, also .c or .S files. If it exists or not, it does
not matter.
Consistency was my point here. Every other file in boards.cfg exists
prior to build.
4. The temporary file can be placed in an out-of-tree directory for
make -O builds
Using the file extension to determine whether to use the preprocessor is
also
what gcc uses to preprocess ".S" files while skipping this for ".s" files.
I believe that at least other mx6 boards will quickly change to using
the preprocessor
as well to add support for solo/duallite, so total line count should
eventually be
less with changes to the main makefile.
Ok, but if this true, the rule should be moved to the mx6 directory, and
should not be valid for other i.MX that do not need it.
Introducing slight differences to the image generation rules per family
generation when we could just have one rule that works fine for all
generations is one worry I have about the notion of moving things out of
a top level Makefile and putting them elsewhere.
Having said that, I really have no problem going your route, I just
don't prefer it.
Let me know.
Let's wait to know Tom's opinion.
How about this, if we convert the existing cfg files to '@' comments and
use the LDSCRIPT style preprocessor rule instead of another one? I
assume there's improvements that could be done to the mx5 ones if we
preprocessed them. Or no? I'm looking for opinions here myself still..
I had previously converted all existing cfg files to /* */ comments.
That style of
comment seems common for LDSCRIPTs as well. '@''s actually give me an error.
arm-eabi-ld:u-boot.lds:1: ignoring invalid character `@' in expression
I do believe mx5 files can benefit from preprocessing. I can see the
advantage of
converting everything now. I also like flexibility of not forcing every
cfg file to
change now. So, I am setting on the fence. If I have to take a position, I'd
fall on the side of the smaller patch set of a gradual conversion, just
because I
like smaller patches.
Troy
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
