On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 09:43:10AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 08:16, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 06:19:05AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 at 13:34, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 07:48:17AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 18:07, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:03:08PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 07:46, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:08:40AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 17:40, Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There's some complexity that can be removed here today, maybe. > > > > > > > > But not a > > > > > > > > lot of it, because it's complex to build three different things > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > configuring once. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, with my scheme, you can still use > > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD if you want to. It adds SPL_ > > > > > > > > > versions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. You have to use it still, with yours. Because > > > > > > > > "ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD", "SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD" and > > > > > > > > "TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD" are the same concept of "use common > > > > > > > > board > > > > > > > > code" but different files at TPL, SPL and PPL. And you still > > > > > > > > have to > > > > > > > > with mine, because for the same reason. With mine, the Kconfig > > > > > > > > is: > > > > > > > > config SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD > > > > > > > > bool "SPL rockchip common board file" > > > > > > > > depends on SPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > config TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD > > > > > > > > bool "TPL rockchip common board file" > > > > > > > > depends on TPL > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And since you are only ever configuring for TPL or SPL or PPL > > > > > > > > (or VPL or > > > > > > > > ...) the resulting config only ever asks for the appropriate > > > > > > > > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is part of the confusion I keep noting with your > > > > > > > > proposal as > > > > > > > > it will be inconsistent for which symbols CONFIG_SPL_xxx is > > > > > > > > referred to > > > > > > > > in code as CONFIG_SPL_xxx or as CONFIG_xxx. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it is confusing, we can change all of them to CONFIG_xxx in a > > > > > > > follow-up. There is no need to mention SPL_, it just allows the > > > > > > > existing code to work without a wholesale change. > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's not correct. Please look again at what I've written > > > > > > explaining why. > > > > > > > > > > See below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, why are you OK with that and not the others? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because there is no: > > > > > > > > config TPL_RAM > > > > > > > > bool "RAM driver in TPL" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in what I am proposing. That's why. There's one symbol because > > > > > > > > there's > > > > > > > > the same files being built. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, well that works the same for my scheme too. Either will do. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see how that can work in your scheme. > > > > > > > > > > Here is the full Kconfig for that file, with my scheme: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > > > # > > > > > # Copyright (c) 2014 Google, Inc > > > > > # Copyright (c) 2019 Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > > > > > > > > # We don't want the bootrom-helper present in a full U-Boot build, as > > > > > # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer pointing to > > > > > # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper assumes that > > > > > # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the U-Boot stack). > > > > > obj-spl-$(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-spl-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o > > > > > > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),) > > > > > > > > > > # Always include boot_mode.o, as we bypass it (i.e. turn it off) > > > > > # inside of boot_mode.c when CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is 0. > > > > > This way, > > > > > # we can have the preprocessor correctly recognise both 0x0 and 0 > > > > > # meaning "turn it off". > > > > > obj-y += boot_mode.o > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += board.o > > > > > endif > > > > > > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),) > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_DISPLAY_CPUINFO) += cpu-info.o > > > > > endif > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += sdram.o > > > > > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3128) += rk3128/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3188) += rk3188/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK322X) += rk322x/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288) += rk3288/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3308) += rk3308/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3328) += rk3328/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3368) += rk3368/ > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3399) += rk3399/ > > > > > 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) += $(obj-tpl-y) > > > > > <<<< > > > > > > > > > > The only change is the line that was: > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_$(PHASE_)RAM) += sdram.o > > > > > > > > Yes, that's also what I showed via unified diff format earlier, and so I > > > > agree. > > > > > > OK good. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For this one: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, that's not what I've been saying and trying to make clear > > > > > > > > with my > > > > > > > > examples. I keep saying that there are explicitly SPL (or TPL > > > > > > > > or VPL) > > > > > > > > only options. And these need to be named as such. And so that's > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > confusion your proposal introduces (inconsistency about > > > > > > > > referring to a > > > > > > > > symbol that has been enabled) and mine removes entirely (we > > > > > > > > only ever > > > > > > > > refer to symbols based on their name). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, but you still have 'config SPL_RAM', right? Would you keep > > > > > > > > > > > > No, again, I do not. Please re-read my proposal as you seem to keep > > > > > > making the same incorrect assumptions about it, and then saying that > > > > > > your scheme would also do that. They are very much not at all the > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we have reached the limits of email on this one, but I am quite > > > > > confused about your scheme. I suggested that you don't have > > > > > CONFIG_SPL_ things and you said tht was wrong. Then I asked if you > > > > > still have SPL_RAM and you said you don't. Let me try this: > > > > > > > > > > Q: In your scheme, do you have 'config SPL_RAM' and CONFIG_SPL_RAM, or > > > > > do you not? > > > > > > > > In my scheme we do not have 'config SPL_RAM' nor CONFIG_SPL_RAM as there > > > > is no case where 'config RAM' and 'CONFIG_RAM' is incorrect. Because we > > > > are never configuring and building for more than one phase. > > > > > > > > In my scheme we do have 'config SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD and > > > > 'CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD' because they are NOT the same thing > > > > as 'config ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD' and 'CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD' > > > > (and again for TPL_...). They control different code. While technically > > > > possible, I am arguing against overloading ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD and > > > > having the Makefile have to do some two part check like we have today, > > > > as those are one of the pain points of adding new code. > > > > > > OK I think I have some sort of understanding now. > > > > > > Here is the patch that works for me (on top of your patch above). Note > > > that we don't have to make those changes, but they show how my scheme > > > is different in what it expects: > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile > > > b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile > > > index 23c30f68f87..0593e028de4 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile > > > @@ -7,27 +7,35 @@ > > > # 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). > > > +ifdef CONFIG_XPL_BUILD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o > > > +endif > > > +ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o > > > spl_common.o > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o > > > +endif > > > +ifdef CONFIG_TPL_BUILD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o > > > +endif > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o > > > > > > +ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),) > > > + > > > # 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, > > > # we can have the preprocessor correctly recognise both 0x0 and 0 > > > # 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_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-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/ > > > @@ -43,4 +51,3 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) += rk3568/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/ > > > -endif > > > -- > > > 2.43.0 > > > > > > > > > Here's the full file: > > > > > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > > > # > > > # Copyright (c) 2014 Google, Inc > > > # Copyright (c) 2019 Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > > > > # We don't want the bootrom-helper present in a full U-Boot build, as > > > # this may have entered from ATF with the stack-pointer pointing to > > > # inaccessible/protected memory (and the bootrom-helper assumes that > > > # the stack-pointer is valid before switching to the U-Boot stack). > > > ifdef CONFIG_XPL_BUILD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BROM_HELPER) += bootrom.o > > > endif > > > ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o > > > endif > > > ifdef CONFIG_TPL_BUILD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o > > > endif > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30-board-tpl.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036-board-spl.o > > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_XPL_BUILD)$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),) > > > > > > # 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, > > > # we can have the preprocessor correctly recognise both 0x0 and 0 > > > # 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_RAM) += sdram.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_PX30) += px30/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3036) += rk3036/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3066) += rk3066/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3128) += rk3128/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3188) += rk3188/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK322X) += rk322x/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288) += rk3288/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3308) += rk3308/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3328) += rk3328/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3368) += rk3368/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3399) += rk3399/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3568) += rk3568/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3588) += rk3588/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1108) += rv1108/ > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RV1126) += rv1126/ > > > > > > So we need CONFIG_SPL_BUILD when using a > > > CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD option which I agree looks strange. > > > > > > We can't do this with my scheme: > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o > > > > You can't do that with any scheme, to be clear. I don't know why you're > > mentioning it. > > Just so we have a baseline. > > > > > > since that will compile both targets into whatever phases are enabled. > > > > > > To me, the ifdef I have above is less confusing than that, but I would > > > actually prefer this: > > > > > > ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o spl_common.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD) += tpl.o spl_common.o > > > endif > > > > That would be less bad than what you've had earlier, yes. But I think > > mine is still clearer. > > Sure. > > > > > > Anyway, this is a strange case and I don't think it is a huge deal. In > > > > Yes, but it's not the only case like this, it's just the first one that > > came to mind. > > I've not seen that sort of construct (spl-xxx += ...) in U-Boot > before, so I don't think it is common. I am sure there are others, but > my scheme does work with existing Makefiles.
It's one of many examples of the workarounds needed for "do we want this object in all phases or just some phases". > > > general, when you enable an option for some phases you get that code > > > in those phases. When you actually *don't* want the code in a > > > particular phase, either don't set the option, or add another > > > condition. > > > > And your proposal doesn't solve that problem, still. Go back up in the > > thread and see the DWC3 example I wanted to see if was still broken, and > > is still broken. > > What is broken about it? Are you using the old series? I don't see any > changes to the Makefile there in my new series. I summarized things in the email there. And yes, your series does not address and seemingly makes even worse, the problem of including/excluding DWC3 from different phases. > > > After all, the current Makefile code is actually a bit of a > > > workaround. Any scheme is going to have drawbacks. > > > > Yes, there's lots of workarounds. My scheme removes all of those > > workarounds once complete. What phase is being configured and built is a > > strict "pick 1 from N" and so we do not have CONFIG_SPL_BUILD, > > CONFIG_TPL_BUILD, CONFIG_XPL_BUILD, etc. > > Yes, I think that's right. For the most part my scheme will do the > same, but there will be exceptions, like the rockchip one. If you're referring to arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Makefile that could be rewritten, today, to be a little less cumbersome. It is still an example of the tricky workarounds that are needed for including/excluding objects based on phases, and is another example of how your series would not make adding a new phase easier. > > > With my scheme, I want to have the options for all phases in each > > > autoconf_xpl.h so that you can check an option for one phase in > > > another. That is part of my intent to (as now) have a single Kconfig > > > which covers every option in every phase. The down-side of that is > > > that you have to be aware of it. > > > > Yes, and we're going to violate a whole lot of "least surprise" rules > > by changing how something we've borrowed from a much larger and more > > popular project works (and also how other projects which borrow it > > work). > > I don't agree with that. Linux only builds a single build. We are > always going to have to do more here than Linux. Also Linux has no > interest in taking our Kbuild patches and incidentally, held out > against FIT for 10 years! Linux will do what it wants to do. This is > U-Boot. Again, I am proposing we only do a single build. And yes, this is U-Boot where one of our key attractions is "It's just like working in the Linux Kernel, which you're likely already familiar with". So "Ah, but CONFIG_FOO doesn't mean CONFIG_FOO!" will violate that, badly. > > > This did get me thinking though, whether with my scheme we could > > > (later) change Kconfig so that there is an SPL symbol, which is only > > > true when building SPL. Basically we would change the existing SPL to > > > HAVE_SPL, and SPL_BUILD to SPL. But we could put the 'new' SPL into > > > Kconfig, so you can depend on it, etc. Lots of options have 'depends > > > on SPL' which would mean 'depends on HAVE_SPL', but we could just > > > leave them as they are. > > > > > > So then you could use > > > > > > config SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD > > > depends on SPL > > > > > > config TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD > > > depends on TPL > > > > > > and this would work: > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += spl.o spl-boot-order.o > > > spl_common.o > > > obj-$(CONFIG_TPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD) += tpl.o spl_common.o > > > > > > But there is a down-side. Because SPL_ROCKCHIP_COMMON_BOARD is not > > > enabled in the TPL build, TPL will not have visibility into that > > > option. We have effectively moved closer to your scheme: still with a > > > unified Kconfig, but completely split in the source code. Still, we > > > can control that, by having (for example) SPL_TEXT_BASE depend on the > > > new HAVE_SPL instead of SPL. That way, CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE it will > > > appear in all builds. > > > > Yes, that sounds like it will make some of the existing complex logic > > even more complex, and I'm not sure of the benefit. > > Trying to split the difference between our schemes. I'm going to call > this 'option A' for my scheme. > > > > > > We also have to run the 'conf' tool multiple times. > > > > And to be clear, with my scheme that's a requirement since we're only > > building and configuring a single phase. The files I've described with > > "PHASE:XPL:file" are a nice-to-have on top bit, and not required > > especially if it leads to confusion while discussing things. > > Yes, understood. > > Basically I think both schemes work. At present I think we should go > with my scheme now, since it is pretty close to being complete and > involves minimal change to the existing Kconfig, then either do option > A, or decide to split the Kconfig completely, i.e. your scheme. It > seems that you believe my scheme is worse than the status quo, though, > right? I think we need to come up with some way to get the community to vote on your scheme or status quo. I don't think your scheme is "pretty close" to being complete and I think it will make things worse than doing nothing. I was hoping to get you to think about implementing what I proposed instead, but since I still don't think you've understood it, that's not an option either. But imagine you aren't interested in hearing No and not doing it, again. > How much work do you think your scheme would entail? Not sure. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
