On 03.04.2019 15:38, Stefan Roese wrote: > External E-Mail > > > On 03.04.19 14:31, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On 03.04.2019 15:22, Stefan Roese wrote: >>> External E-Mail >>> >>> >>> Hi Eugen, >>> >>> On 03.04.19 13:21, Stefan Roese wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> If I try to just use menuconfig and change this value to something >>>>>> else, >>>>>> build fails. The purpose of this Kconfig is to name the SPL >>>>>> filename as >>>>>> per the config's desire ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or in fact is "which binary file to use to make the Combined >>>>>> SPL+U-BOOT >>>>>> mega image" ? >>>>> >>>>> Ok, the commit message explains it pretty well, but the Kconfig >>>>> help is >>>>> totally different... hence the confusion sorry. >>>>> So we need to either make a choice submenu in this Kconfig : either >>>>> this >>>>> or that; or, do exactly what the Kconfig says: rename the output >>>>> binary >>>>> into the value of this Kconfig. >>>>> >>>>> Does this make sense ? >>>> >>>> You are suggesting to add this SPL_IMAGE as choice instead of its >>>> current implementation? That might be better, yes. Let me look into >>>> this... >>> >>> I did look into this and I would prefer to stay with the original >>> implementation of the defaults. Changing this into a Kconfig choice >>> makes this a bit more complex in the Kconfig. Additionally and even >>> more important (for my personal feeling), the original implementation >>> is more in line with the BUILD_TARGET implemenation directly below >>> this new implementation. >>> >>> So if you don't object, I would like to send a new version with the >>> original implementation but with a "better" (more correct) >>> description in Kconfig. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> This would imply that your new description has to state that if an >> incorrect binary name is configured here, the build will fail (?) > > No. My main reasoning here is, that this is also not included in the > description of "BUILD_TARGET" below. Here you can also change the > selected value (via Kconfig help, no user input needed) to a new value > that is not supported, which also results in a build error. > > I would like to not make this overly complex here. If a user wants > to do something stupid by defining this (or some other Kconfig > option) to an unsupported value, we can't really stop him. > > If you really think this is necessary, I will add a sentence to the > Kconfig text, to only select "supported" values here. But again, I > would prefer to not do this. > > Thanks, > Stefan
Allright, but we have to make sure that everyone understands what this option does when they try to change it. So, a bit of rework of the help text is needed. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
