On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:56:40PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 6/10/20 10:54 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:46:23PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 6/10/20 10:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote: [...]
>> You mean be more like barebox and Linux where the board-specific stuff >> is kicked up one level and we have a more generic binary? I don't know >> and there's so much work that would be required before having to move >> this from a Kconfig choice to just Kconfig options I don't see that as >> being a relevant question here. >> >> Or did I misunderstand the question? > > More like automatically have a Kconfig option generate it's _SPL and > _TPL variant.
Ah. Well, that is rephrasing my first question. Would it ever make sense to have more than one of these enabled?
For some sort of universal SPL, maybe ?
So no, there's not a reason today then and it should be a choice.
Can you provide some more detailed explanation why we shouldn't generate _SPL and _TPL variants of Kconfig entries for all Kconfig entries ? It would make things much simpler and permit configuring SPL/TPL the same way U-Boot is configured, with their own set of options.
In the context of this particular thread? I don't see how it's helpful to say 3 times that we're in fact building for Tegra or STM32 or SoCFPGA when you can't build something that runs on more than one of those.
In general.
Here I can imagine it is possible to build SoCFPGA+STM32 universal SD card image in fact.
So that's the case I brought up at first and you said no to. I don't see that in the foreseeable future but I don't feel so strongly about making this config area tidy enough to argue the point. So fine, leave it as separate options, the default y if ... is reasonable enough to ensure we get functional builds.