On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 10:12:31AM +1000, Andrew Abbott wrote:
> Commit 690af71850149bf242502f688eca80fb302d1f76 changed this condition
> from an explicit
>
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_SEPARATE_BSS)
>
> to
>
> CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SEPARATE_BSS)
>
> The documentation for CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() in include/linux/kconfig.h
> implies that we will get the correct behaviour, but the actual behaviour
> differs such that this condition is now always false.
>
> This stopped TPL being able to load the device tree blob at least on the
> ROCKPro64 board (RK3399 SoC), since the wrong device tree location was
> chosen.
>
> The issues causing this behaviour with CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() are:
>
> 1. The documentation implies that CONFIG_SPL_BUILD =>
> CONFIG_SPL_<option> is considered before the TPL equivalent.
>
> Actually, the TPL options have higher priority - see definition of
> _CONFIG_PREFIX.
>
> 2. The documentation implies a fallthrough, eg. if CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is
> defined but the CONFIG_SPL_<option> is not, then it will proceed to
> check if CONFIG_TPL_BUILD
>
> Actually, if CONFIG_TPL_BUILD is defined, then it stops there
> and CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not considered - see definition of
> _CONFIG_PREFIX.
>
> During TPL build, at least for the ROCKPro64, both CONFIG_TPL_BUILD
> and CONFIG_SPL_BUILD are defined, but because of the above, only TPL
> options are considered. Since there is no CONFIG_TPL_SEPARATE_BSS,
> this fails.
>
> Fixes: 690af71850 ("fdt: Correct condition for SEPARATE_BSS")
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Abbott <[email protected]>Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
