On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 05:50:57AM +0000, Ng, Boon Khai wrote: > Hi Tom, > > > > The callers of dcache_disable/etc should be doing: > > > if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SYS_DCACHE_OFF)) > > > > Hi Tom, just get to know that the spl_atf.c already implemented with the fix > > above, will follow the fix in spl_atf.c and submit in v2 > > > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/3526f990b > > 77fca1c933f1d8b24eb9385010a05bf/common/spl/spl_atf.c#L206 > > > > After carefully analyzing the code, I noticed that after adding the > if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SYS_DCACHE_OFF)) check and removing > the weak function, U-Boot still fails to compile. This is because the > config check has now shifted from being preprocessor-based to > runtime-based. > > Given this, I have two points I'd like to clarify: > 1) Retaining the Weak Function: Since the weak function effectively > resolves the compilation issue, would it be sufficient to retain just > the weak function declaration? > > 2) Config Check Necessity: If the weak function alone solves the issue by > preventing the compilation failure, would the addition of the > runtime-based if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SYS_DCACHE_OFF)) check > still be necessary? > > I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it would be acceptable to keep > the weak function without the config check as a solution.
What does your patch and config look like that shows this problem? It's fine to have an undefined function when if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SYS_DCACHE_OFF)) becomes if (0) once evaluated. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
