On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 04:16:04PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > At present kconfig writes out several files, including: > > auto.conf - CONFIG settings used by make > autoconf.h - header file used by C code > > This works well but is a bit ugly in places, for example requiring the use > of a SPL_TPL_ macro in Makefiles to distinguish between options intended > for SPL and U-Boot proper. > > Update the kconfig tool to also output separate files for each phase: e.g. > auto_spl.conf and autoconf_spl.h > > These are similar to the existing files, but drop the SPL_ prefix so that > SPL_TPL_ is not needed. It also allows the CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() macro to be > simplified, in a later patch, eventually replacing it with IS_ENABLED(). > > When CONFIG_FOO is used within SPL, it means that FOO is enabled in that > SPL phase. For example if CONFIG_SPL_FOO is enabled in the Kconfig, that > means that CONFIG_FOO will be enabled in the SPL phase. So the SPL builds > can just use CONFIG_FOO to check it. There is no need to use > CONFIG_SPL_FOO or CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() anymore. > > This of course means that if there is a need to access a PPL symbol from > an SPL build, there is no way to do it. To copy with that, we need a > CONFIG_PPL_FOO to be visibilty to all SPL builds. > > So this change also adds new PPL_ output for U-Boot proper (Primary > Program Loader). So every CONFIG_FOO that is enabled in PPL also has a > CONFIG_PPL_FOO > > This allows SPL to access the TEXT_BASE for U-Boot proper, for example, so > it knows where to load it. There are about 30 places where this is needed, > in addition to TEXT_BASE. The environment has the same problem, adding > another dozen or so caes in include/config_distro_bootcmd.h but it has > been decided to ignore that for now. > > The feature is controlled by an environment variable, since it seems to be > bad form to add flags to the conf tool. > > Rebuild the autoconf files if the split config is not present. This allows > building this commit as part of a chain, without generating build errors. > > These changes may benefit from some reworking to send upstream, e.g. to > use a struct for the 'arg' parameter. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]>
This patch, I think, is where my largest problem is. We go from being able to say "if CONFIG_SPL_FOO is undefined, it is false" to "we must define CONFIG_SPL_FOO to false". There's around 150 cases of this, with the series. Why can we not extend the PPL logic (which I'm not super happy with, but, I understand and I think an audit of everything not-TEXT_BASE should be fairly straight forward), to say that if CONFIG_FOO exists and CONFIG_SPL_FOO does not exist, say CONFIG_SPL_FOO is now false. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
