On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 08:03:20AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > I just wanted to send a note to (re-)introduce my ideas[1] for the > next iteration of xPL. > > A recent series introduced 'xPL' as the name for the various > pre-U-Boot phases, so now CONFIG_XPL_BUILD means that this is any xPL > phase and CONFIG_SPL means this really is the SPL phase, not TPL. We > still use filenames and function naming which uses 'spl', but could > potentially adjust that. > > The major remaining problem IMO is that it is quite tricky and > expensive (in terms of time) to add a new phase. We also have some > medium-sized problems: > > a. The $(PHASE_), $(SPL_) rules in the Makefile are visually ugly and > can be confusing, particularly when combined with ifdef and ifneq > > b. We have both CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() and IS_ENABLED() and they mean > different things. For any given option, some code uses one and some > the other, depending on what problems people have met along the way. > > c. An option like CONFIG_FOO is ambiguous, in that it could mean that > the option is enabled in one or more xPL phases, or just in U-Boot > proper. The only way to know is to look for $(PHASE_) etc. in the > Makefiles and CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() in the code. This is very confusing > and has not scaled well. > > d. We need to retain an important feature: options from different > phases can depend on each other. As an example, we might want to > enable MMC in SPL by default, if MMC is enabled in U-Boot proper. We > may also want to share values between phases, such as TEXT_BASE. We > can do this easily today, just by adding Kconfig rules.
I agree with a through c and for d there are likely some cases even if
I'm not sure TEXT_BASE is a good example. But I'm not sure it's as
important as the other ones.
> Proposal
>
> 1. Adjust kconf to generate separate autoconf.h files for each phase.
> These contain the values for each Kconfig option for that phase. For
> example CONFIG_TEXT_BASE in autoconf_spl.h is SPL's text base.
>
> 2. Add a file to resolve the ambiguity in (c) above, listing the
> Kconfig options which should not be enabled/valid in any xPL build.
> There are around 200 of these.
>
> 3. Introduce CONFIG_PPL as a new prefix, meaning U-Boot proper (only),
> useful in rare cases. This indicates that the option applies only to
> U-Boot proper and is not defined in any xPL build. It is analogous to
> CONFIG_TPL_xxx meaning 'enabled in TPL'. Only a dozen of these are
> needed at present, basically to allow access to the value for another
> phase, e.g. SPL wanting to find CONFIG_PPL_TEXT_BASE so that it knows
> the address to which U-Boot should be loaded.
>
> 4. There is no change to the existing defconfig files, or 'make
> menuconfig', which works just as today, including dependencies between
> options across all phases.
>
> 5. (next) Expand the Kconfig language[2] to support declaring phases
> (SPL, TPL, etc.) and remove the need for duplicating options (DM_MMC,
> SPL_DM_MMC, TPL_DM_MMC, VPL_DM_MMC), so allowing an option to be
> declared once for any/all phases. We can then drop the file in 2
> above.
>
> With this, maintaining Kconfig options, Makefiles and adding a new
> phase should be considerably easier.
I think this will not make our life easier, it will make things harder.
I think what we've reached now shows that Yamada-san was correct at the
time in saying that we were going down the wrong path with how we
handled SPL/TPL.
My request instead is:
- Largely drop SPL/TPL/VPL (so no DM_MMC and SPL_DM_MMC and so on, just
DM_MMC) as a prefix.
- Likely need to introduce a PPL symbol as you suggest.
- Make PPL/SPL/TPL/VPL be a choice statement when building a defconfig.
- Split something like rockpro64-rk3399_defconfig in to
rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig
rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig
and add Makefile logic such that for X_defconfig as a build target but
not configs/X_defconfig not existing, we see if any of
configs/X_{ppl,spl,tpl,vpl}_defconfig exist and we run a builds in
subdirectories of our object directory, and then using binman combine
as needed.
- Maybe instead the Makefile logic above we would parse X_defconfig
and see if it's a different format of say PHASE:file to make it
easier to say share a single TPL config with all rk3399, have a few
common SPL configs and then just a board specific PPL.
This solves (a) by removing them entirely. This solves (b) by removing
the ambiguity entirely (it will be enabled or not). As a bonus for (b)
we can switch everyone to IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FOO) and match up with the
Linux Kernel again. This solves (c) again by removing it entirely.
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
