On 23/05/2022 17:10, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 06:28:44AM +0000, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86
Why are you mentioning LTO in the commit message? When I read the commit message it sounds like you're saying the problem is that LTO doesn't like how this symbol is handled, but if LTO was disabled, everything would be fine. If it's not LTO-related, please re-word the message instead.
Sorry, I could reword the commit message, but currently I have no better idea to address the issue unless use X86 as a guard in the code as this patch does. If you agree the code in this patch, I could reword commit msg and send v5.
Well, lets see what Alper says in the other part of the thread. I'd really like to solve this not work around this. But I'll take documenting the problem for the person that has X86 && LTO as good enough for the moment.
Alternatively, I think we can decide that all binman symbols are optional, and not raise an error when we can't find a value for them. They are de-facto optional anyway: people can use the non-binman-image build artifacts (which binman doesn't update wrt. symbols), thus the code that uses binman symbols should assume their values can be missing.