Hi Tom,
On 08/28/2018 08:49 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:51:26PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote: > >> SPL_FRAMEWORK is a set of framework feature, we may not need the >> fromework for both TPL and SPL at the same time, so add a separate >> one for TPL. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <[email protected]> >> --- >> >> Makefile | 2 +- >> arch/arm/lib/Makefile | 4 ++-- >> arch/arm/lib/crt0.S | 6 +++++- >> common/spl/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ >> common/spl/Makefile | 2 +- >> scripts/Makefile.spl | 4 ++++ >> 6 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile >> index 4b3023b259..68b77d1e43 100644 >> --- a/Makefile >> +++ b/Makefile >> @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ endif >> endif >> ALL-$(CONFIG_TPL) += tpl/u-boot-tpl.bin >> ALL-$(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE) += u-boot.dtb >> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK),y) >> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_FRAMEWORK),y) >> ALL-$(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE) += u-boot-dtb.img >> endif >> ALL-$(CONFIG_OF_HOSTFILE) += u-boot.dtb > We should be adding a new stanza here and not replacing the SPL one I > would think. This may not need, I though this is for TPL because it's just after target for CONFIG_TPL. Will drop this part next version. > > [snip] >> diff --git a/common/spl/Kconfig b/common/spl/Kconfig >> index db1915fe5c..1a2e10b892 100644 >> --- a/common/spl/Kconfig >> +++ b/common/spl/Kconfig >> @@ -813,6 +813,15 @@ config TPL >> help >> If you want to build TPL as well as the normal image and SPL, say Y. >> >> +config TPL_FRAMEWORK >> + bool "Support TPL based upon the common TPL framework" >> + depends on TPL >> + default y >> + help >> + Enable the TPL framework under common/spl/. This framework >> + re-use the all the framework feature from SPL but enable separetely. >> + If unsure, say Y. > This shouldn't be default y, and the help shouldn't suggest that either > I think. My concern with this series is TPL wasn't intended to get too > featureful. Our initial constraints are enough that we need something > to init DDR and load SPL into that as we can't do enough with our > limited resources to load full U-Boot. In fact, looking at the follow > up rockchip specific patch that's more in line what my expectations. So > I think you should be able to get TPL to do what you want without > introducing TPL_FRAMEWORK. Thanks! I have to introducing TPL_FRAMEWORK because the SPL_FRAMEWORK is shared by TPL and SPL, if I have enable TPL and SPL, then: - I would like to use TPL without framework(which refers to DM, common lib and FDT); - I would like to use SPL with SPL_FRAMEWORK If there is no TPL_FRAMEWORK, then I'm not sure if I can use the TINY_FRAMEWORK to overwrite everything. I introduce TINY_FRAMEWORK is to remove other program like vector table, runtime C init, which is not include in SPL_FRAMEWORK now. Thanks, - Kever _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
