Hi Tom,
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 17:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:39:37PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 13:17, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 01:47:32PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 12:34:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 12:22, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 12:11:12PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 11:50, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 03:22:22PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lets come back up here, to my proposal, since parts of it seem
> > > > > > > > to have
> > > > > > > > not been clear enough. While what I'm proposing should work for
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > platform and xPL -> xPL -> ... -> PPL, for this example let us
> > > > > > > > assume
> > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399 supports the flow of TPL -> SPL -> PPL. Also,
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > compare with today, it will be helpful to run "make
> > > > > > > > O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_current rockpro64-rk3399_config" and
> > > > > > > > have the
> > > > > > > > resulting .config file available.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There shall be configs/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig. This
> > > > > > > > will contain
> > > > > > > > lines such as:
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_ARM=y
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_ARCH_ROCKCHIP=y
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3399=y
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL=y
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you run "make O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl
> > > > > > > > rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig"
> > > > > > > > the resulting .config file will contain lines such as:
> > > > > > > > # CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_EXTERNAL_TPL is not set
> > > > > > > > as this only makes sense in the context of building something
> > > > > > > > that will
> > > > > > > > be TPL.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A more complex example is that it will also contain:
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD=y
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because looking at arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile a bunch of
> > > > > > > > that will
> > > > > > > > be able to be simplified (and spl_common.c should be renamed to
> > > > > > > > xpl_common.c) to:
> > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o
> > > > > > > > spl-boot-order.o xpl_common.o
> > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o xpl_common.o
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The .config file here will also contain:
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_DM_SERIAL=y
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What it will not contain is:
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL_DM_SERIAL=y
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is because there is no 'config TPL_DM_SERIAL' option in
> > > > > > > > drivers/serial/Kconfig anymore.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When you next run "make O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl all" the
> > > > > > > > results in
> > > > > > > > /tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_tpl would be similar to the results as
> > > > > > > > under
> > > > > > > > "/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399/tpl/" when building today.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The contents of configs/rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig would be
> > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > to the tpl one, except with SPL-only-ever-valid options such as
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD=y but otherwise have
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_DM_SERIAL=y
> > > > > > > > and no CONFIG_SPL_DM_SERIAL=y, and when building the "all"
> > > > > > > > target, you
> > > > > > > > would only get similar results to what is under the spl/
> > > > > > > > directory
> > > > > > > > today.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Next we have configs/rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig. When you
> > > > > > > > run "make
> > > > > > > > O=/tmp/rockpro64-rk3399_ppl rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig" the
> > > > > > > > important difference is what you do not have. You do not have:
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL=y
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_TPL=y
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because we are not building SPL nor TPL. We're just making full
> > > > > > > > U-Boot
> > > > > > > > itself. This is where in more full examples and with additional
> > > > > > > > restructure a "generic-arm64_ppl_defconfig" makes sense and be
> > > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This brings up what to do with "ockpro64-rk3399_defconfig". And
> > > > > > > > I'm a
> > > > > > > > little unsure which of the things I mentioned above is best.
> > > > > > > > It's
> > > > > > > > either:
> > > > > > > > a) Does not exist, top-level Makefile says roughly:
> > > > > > > > %_defconfig: %_tpl_defconfig %_spl_defconfig %_ppl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/tpl %_tpl_defconfig all
> > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/spl %_spl_defconfig all
> > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/ppl %_ppl_defconfig all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But this might be too rigid.
> > > > > > > > b) It contains:
> > > > > > > > PHASE:VPL:rockpro64-rk3399_vpl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > PHASE:TPL:rockpro64-rk3399_tpl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > PHASE:SPL:rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > PHASE:PPL:rockpro64-rk3399_ppl_defconfig
> > > > > > > > And the top-level Makefile looks like:
> > > > > > > > %_defconfig:
> > > > > > > > grep -q ^PHASE $@ || fatal "Invalid defconfig file, please
> > > > > > > > see..."
> > > > > > > > foreach line in $@
> > > > > > > > make O=$(objdir)/$PHASE $CONFIGFILE all
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It could also be some other suggestion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for writing that up. It is somewhat clearer.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What happens to the Makefiles? Do they still have $(PHASE_) in
> > > > > > > them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. Because CONFIG_SPL_FIT would never exist, $(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)FIT)
> > > > > > would be meaningless. Only rockpro64-rk3399_spl_defconfig would say
> > > > > > CONFIG_FIT=y (or more likely, only the resulting .config would say
> > > > > > CONFIG_FIT=y just like how configs/rockpro64-rk3399_defconfig
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > say CONFIG_FIT=y nor CONFIG_SPL_FIT=y).
> > > > >
> > > > > But just above you said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I believe this proposal will lead to the code and Makefiles being
> > > > > > less
> > > > > > clear than they are today. The line:
> > > > > > drivers/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)BLK) += block/
> > > > > > will become:
> > > > > > drivers/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_BLK) += block/
> > > > > > without being clear that it could reference either full U-Boot
> > > > > > (PPL) or
> > > > > > some xPL phase. While the same Makefile will continue to have
> > > > > > (comments
> > > > > > my own):
> > > > > > obj-y += mtd/ # Subdirectory Makefiles control build contents
> > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_MULTIPLEXER) += mux/ # Only valid for PPL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And so the situation for humans will be worse off than today because
> > > > > > while $(PHASE_) and $(XPL_) are confusing at times, they make it
> > > > > > clear
> > > > > > what can and cannot be enabled in PPL vs xPL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Doing "something" is not better than doing nothing in this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > So why is OK for your proposal to drop the $(PHASE_) stuff, but not
> > > > > mine?
> > > >
> > > > Because your proposal keeps CONFIG_SPL_BLK (and config SPL_BLK) and has
> > > > a .config file which says "CONFIG_SPL_BLK=y" but mine doesn't.
> > > >
> >
> > > With my
> > > proposal "I have a problem, and I want to see what my SPL build has with
> > > CONFIG_BLK=y. I can see hits in the source tree for CONFIG_BLK, the
> > > symbol I set, I can solve my problem."
> >
> > There will be at least some matches, e.g. CONFIG_SPL_BLK in the
> > defconfig files and 'config SPL_BLK' in the source tree.
>
> Yes, and that's confusing. I am arguing that your statement is more
> confusing than $(PHASE_)BLK is.
OK
>
> > > > Or to try and explain differently, with your proposal "I have a problem,
> > > > and I want to see what builds with CONFIG_SPL_BLK=y. Why is there no
> > > > match in the source tree for CONFIG_SPL_BLK or even SPL_BLK". With my
> > > > proposal "I have a problem, and I want to see what my SPL build has with
> > > > CONFIG_BLK=y. I can see hits in the source tree for CONFIG_BLK, the
> > > > symbol I set, I can solve my problem."
> >
> > Well, CONFIG_BLK will be in the source tree; it just means different
> > things for different phases.
>
> And it will be, with your proposal, controlled by BLK or SPL_BLK or
> TPL_BLK or VPL_BLK in the .config file but only CONFIG_BLK in Makefile
> and code.
>
> > It sounds like you want to get rid of the xPL prefixes for Kconfig
> > options, and that overrides all other considerations?
>
> It's one of the big problems we have today, and splc-working shows how
> much further the duplication must go. It's why I suggested the language
> modification before.
>
> > > My other try here was a bit unclear actually because of the confusion
> > > state your proposal gives us. Try try again directly, the problem is
> > > that CONFIG_SPL_BLK will be set (or unset) but not referenced in code.
> > > This will be true for many but not all SPL symbols as
> > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD for example will still exist and need
> > > to be referenced. This is a more confusing state than $(PHASE_). $(XPL_)
> > > I think can just be replaced with $(PHASE_) but I haven't confirmed (I
> > > think it does show that the old way was confusing however).
> >
> > OK, I think I see. You don't want people to have to 'know' that
> > CONFIG_xPL_xxx is used to control feature xxx in each xPL build?
>
> I'm saying they have to know that, and also know which symbols that's
> not true for. And that is more confusing than today. I'm saying that
> compared with today's arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile the following is
> worse:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> index 5e7edc99cdc4..3b176966f75b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> endif
>
> -obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)RAM) += sdram.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
>
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
>
> (And CONFIG_TPL_RAM and CONFIG_SPL_RAM still exist).
>
> And this is better:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> index 5e7edc99cdc4..23c30f68f878 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile
> @@ -7,15 +7,13 @@
> # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer pointing to
> # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper assumes that
> # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the U-Boot stack).
> -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> spl_common.o
> -obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> -obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> -obj-tpl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> spl_common.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o
>
> -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
> -
> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o
>
> # Always include boot_mode.o, as we bypass it (i.e. turn it off)
> # inside of boot_mode.c when CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is 0. This way,
> @@ -23,14 +21,13 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> # meaning "turn it off".
> obj-y += boot_mode.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += board.o
> -endif
>
> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),)
> obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o
> -endif
>
> -obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)RAM) += sdram.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
>
> +ifdef CONFIG_PPL
> +# TODO: Audit these Makefiles see if they really must be PPL only
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/
> @@ -46,10 +43,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) += rk3568/
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/
> obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/
> -
> -# Clear out SPL objects, in case this is a TPL build
> -obj-spl-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) =
> -
> -# Now add SPL/TPL objects back into the main build
> -obj-$(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD) += $(obj-spl-y)
> -obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) += $(obj-tpl-y)
> +endif
> (CONFIG_SPL_RAM and CONFIG_TPL_RAM no longer exist as options).
>
This Makefile is a very strange example. I've thought about cleaning
it up a few times, but then I know someone will say it needs to be in
its own series, etc. so I've never got around to it. Even with the
current xPL stuff (i.e. making CONFIG_SPL_BUILD mean just SPL) it is
needlessly complex.
Anyway, with my scheme, you can still use
CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD if you want to. It adds SPL_ versions
of symbols to autoconf_spl.h for this reason. There are also places in
the code where people directly check CONFIG_SPL_xxx and these need to
work.
This surprised me:
obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
Are you saying you are OK with this one, instead of, for example:
obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_RAM) += sdram.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_RAM) += sdram.o
obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o
If so, why are you OK with that and not the others?
For this one:
> +obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o
> spl_common.o
I don't understand how it can work with your scheme, since you don't
want to have any CONFIG_SPL_ things?
Also, while we are talking about Makefiles, your scheme requires a lot
of rework to get right. It won't 'just work' with existing Makefiles.
My scheme does, but for a handle of tweaks,
e.g.drivers/phy/cadence/Makefile . It even allows the $(PHASE_) things
to be kept. It also works (so far as I can tell) with your changes
above.
Regards,
Simon
