On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 06:57:11AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 08:49, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 07:15:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 13:41, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is confusing to have both "$(PHASE_)" and "$(XPL_)" be used in our > > > > Makefiles as part of the macros to determine when to do something in our > > > > Makefiles based on what phase of the build we are in. For consistency, > > > > bring this down to a single macro and use "$(PHASE_)" only. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > Cc: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > This leads a little bit of dead code in scripts/Makefile.xpl that I > > > > didn't remove as this is an RFC. This also omits expanding on our build > > > > documentation slightly. > > > > > > > > With the following patches applied (which are correct regardless of this > > > > RFC and so separate): > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ > > > > > > > > There's no change in the resulting build before/after this patch. > > > > > > > > We could do the other direction and drop $(PHASE_) in favour of $(XPL_) > > > > but that would require updating the logic of how XPL_ is defined. > > > > > > These are not the same thing at present: > > > > > > XPL_ refers to any xPL phase > > > PHASE_ refers to a particular xPL phase > > > > > > Since it doesn't change the build, it must be fine. It's just surprising, > > > to me. > > > > Erm, this is what we have in scripts/Makefile.xpl today: > > > > ifdef CONFIG_XPL_BUILD > > XPL_ := SPL_ > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_VPL_BUILD),y) > > PHASE_ := VPL_ > > else > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD),y) > > PHASE_ := TPL_ > > else > > PHASE_ := SPL_ > > endif > > endif > > else > > XPL_ := > > PHASE_ := > > endif > > > > Which is why I sent the two fixes first, for places that relied on > > CONFIG_SPL_FOO=y in a TPL (PowerPC and their spl->tpl->U-Boot chain) or > > VPL (sandbox didn't set TPL_DM_I2C but did set SPL_DM_I2C) phase of the > > build. > > OK. I believe this means that we won't be able to say 'build this for > any xPL' without adding a separate Kconfig for each phase where we > want it enabled. Is that right? > > If so, that's fine with me and I would prefer it.
Yes, there's never been an intentional "build this for any xPL". -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
