On 11/05/2012 04:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> >> >> If a U-Boot config file enables CONFIG_BOUNCE_BUFFER only for the main >> U-Boot build and not for the SPL, then config.mk will contain >> CONFIG_BOUNCE_BUFFER=y, so common/Makefile will build bouncebuf.c for >> both the SPL and main U-Boot, but config.h won't set CONFIG_BOUNCE_BUFFER >> for the SPL, so bouncebuf.h will provide static inline functions, which >> will conflict with the compiled bouncebuf.c. Solve this by guarding the >> body of bouncebuf.c with the ifdef to avoid conflicts. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swar...@nvidia.com> > > Acked-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > This seems like a problem that might come up in other areas. I wonder > if SPL should have its own autoconf.mk?
That might be a good idea. Is the config.h separate for SPL-vs-non-SPL? Perhaps it doesn't need to be because it's simply always evaluated at each individual compile time, whereas perhaps autoconf.mk is generated once rather than evaluated? As you can tell, I have not looked into this or most aspects of U-Boot's build system, so I have no idea how feasible fixing the build system for this would be. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
