On 8/30/21 1:11 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:00:02AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/30/21 12:51 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:40:07AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/30/21 12:23 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:19:59AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 8/30/21 12:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 8/29/21 9:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 09:24:46PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 8/29/21 8:02 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 06:26:23PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>> On 8/15/21 9:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:13:02PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The CONFIG_LMB_*_REGIONS are defined only if CONFIG_LMB is enabled, >>>>>>>> protect access to those two config options to avoid undefined macro >>>>>>>> errors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com >>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org >>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com >>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> include/lmb.h | 4 ++-- >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/lmb.h b/include/lmb.h >>>>>>>> index 3c4afdf9f0..fa1474a360 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/include/lmb.h >>>>>>>> +++ b/include/lmb.h >>>>>>>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct lmb_property { >>>>>>>> struct lmb_region { >>>>>>>> unsigned long cnt; >>>>>>>> unsigned long max; >>>>>>>> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS) >>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS) >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't make sense to me, still. You cannot enable >>>>> CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS without CONFIG_LMB as the former depends on >>>>> the latter in Kconfig. >>>>> >>>>>>>> struct lmb_property region[CONFIG_LMB_MAX_REGIONS]; >>>>>>>> #else >>>>>>>> struct lmb_property *region; >>>>>>>> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct lmb_region { >>>>>>>> struct lmb { >>>>>>>> struct lmb_region memory; >>>>>>>> struct lmb_region reserved; >>>>>>>> -#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS) >>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS) >>>>>>>> struct lmb_property memory_regions[CONFIG_LMB_MEMORY_REGIONS]; >>>>>>>> struct lmb_property reserved_regions[CONFIG_LMB_RESERVED_REGIONS]; >>>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We shouldn't need this at all. LMB and LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS are both in >>>>>>> Kconfig and have the dependencies expressed that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, CONFIG_LMB_MEMORY_REGIONS and CONFIG_LMB_RESERVED_REGIONS may be >>>>>> undefined if CONFIG_LMB and !CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS . They are four >>>>>> different symbols. >>>>> >>>>> I'm still not seeing it, sorry. Is there some case where we're trying >>>>> to access a struct lmb without CONFIG_LMB enabled? >>>>> >>>> >>>> See build failure >>>> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-sh/-/jobs/315331 >>> >>> Ah, progress. Drop <lmb.h> from <image.h> since we already have a >>> forward declaration of struct lmb? But it's not failing without this >>> series too, so what's changing? >> >> See 01/14 in this series. > > Ah, so drop 1/14 then.
Why ? That patch is correct.
It's not quite right, 1/14 and then 2/14 are papering over the fact that lmb.h, and it's including headers / files, need to be cleaned up so that we don't need to have redundant tests in the header.
1/14 disables LMB and CMD_BDI for tools build, we do not need those, so 1/14 is correct.
We don't need to build u-boot at all for tools-only, only the tools-only build target. It's just annoying to exclude the tools-only_defconfig from "sandbox" in CI.
So, what exactly is the problem with that 01/14 ? Please elaborate, I believe the patch is correct.
You disable LMB in a target that's only building "all" in CI because wasn't ever worth adding ",sandbox" to the all other arches job until perhaps now.
Disabling LMB in tools-only_defconfig then exposes that <lmb.h> can only be included safely when CONFIG_LMB is set.
Adding / extending an #if test in code for something that's already checked for in Kconfig is bad. We spent so much time already removing and shrinking #if tests in the code.
So, the patch is correct, the headers need further clean up.
What kind of cleanup of lmb.h do you have in mind ?
Remove it from include/image.h and fix any fall-out from that of files that got <lmb.h> indirectly when they needed it directly instead.
Uh ... that is likely for a separate series, and a big one.
Honestly, checking again, I'm not sure LMB=n is valid, ever.
Why wouldn't it be ? For tools, LMB=n is perfectly valid.
That's how we keep our running U-Boot from being trivially overwritten and a huge number of security issues from being re-opened.
Tools are not running U-Boot.
At this point, I think you should rework things to stop making CONFIG_LMB be optional, it should be a def_bool y.
I disagree, see above.