Hi Simon, > > I have been thinking about this a lot, but it isn't 100% clear to me. > > While I agree that duplicating the CONFIGs is bad, in fact the > opposite of what I was getting at, I do feel that things like > CONFIG_TEGRA20 need to be set in one place. We don't want the SPL/TPL > config to be changing things that make no sense given the board that > is selected. It doesn't make sense to have an SPL for Tegra and a TPL > for MX6.
I agree. But I think, in some cases, it makes sense to build SPL only. I want to drop Falcon boot as a special case. In my rough view: - <board>_defconfig : Normal boot sequence - <board>_defconfig + <board>_spl_defconfig : SPL boot sequence - <board>_spl_defconfig : Falcon boot > Similar to what Tom was saying I feel that there will come a time when > the difference between U-Boot and SPL is just the options that are > enabled - the code paths will be the same. For example, I did a > CONFIG_CMD series which removed all commands from U-Boot and cut the > size to <50KB. OK that is not SPL size, but I can see a point where > they will merge. In that case we certainly don't want the option that > you list above - instead we want CONFIG_OF_CONTROL to mean the same > thing for U-Boot and SPL. > > Perhaps it will help if we can have options like: > > make menuconfig_main > make menuconfig_spl > make menuconfig_tpl I have posted v3. It is possible in v3. make menuconfig --> edit .config make spl:menuconfig --> edit spl/.config make tpl:menuconfig --> edit tpl/.config make qpl:menuconfig --> edit qpl/.config etc. Syntax is make <output_dir>:<config_command> Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
