On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 01:24:59PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:50, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 07:07:23AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
We have the term 'SPL', which has a dual meaning. It is both a particular phase of U-Boot (the one that loads U-Boot proper) and a generic name for any pre-proper phase.
You can see that in a few areas, but for example CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is enabled for TPL and VPL builds, not just SPL.
I propose to rename the generic term from SPL to xPL (meaning any PL phase), leaving SPL to just refer to the phase before U-Boot proper.
The symbol would be CONFIG_XPL but in documentation we would talk of xPL, with a lower-case X, so it is more obvious that it refers to any phase.
What do you think?
I still worry this is just another part of the long symptom of needing to re-work how we configure / build as we have 1 case of "build things this way" (full U-Boot) and N cases of "build things another way" (SPL, TPL, VPL, UPL?). And really we need a way to short-hand "fooboard_defconfig" means "fooboard_spl_defconfig + fooboard_tpl_defconfig + fooboard_SOMETHING_defconfig".
IMO my XPL series does this, at least for some definition of this. I'd really like to get that in as it would make all of this much easier.
Yeah, what I recall of your XPL series was that it made a lot of changes I didn't like and highlighted what I thought was that yes, really Yamada-san was right all along and we need a different way of configuring + building. I had even today thought that we could possibly get away with some shorthand where if for "fooboard_defconfig" we _also_ had "fooboard_spl_defconfig" we knew to build in ${O}/spl/ the spl variant. It would be harder for cases where we have "fooboard_defconfig" and "fooboard_hs_defconfig" that both need "fooboard_spl_defconfig", but it would cover many cases at least. Anyhow...
I think a series that replaces CONFIG_SPL_BUILD with CONFIG_XPL_BUILD (and the required logic to make that work...) would be fine.
But on the flip side, I also suppose replacing CONFIG_SPL_BUILD with CONFIG_XPL_BUILD would be less confusing.
Yes. What do you think of E's idea of renaming all the options? I quite liked it when I read it, but now I am thinking that having everything be xPL is quite a nice convention. If we have SETUP_... and TINY_... it is less clear that they are related.
Yes, I think we need better descriptive documentation for what we have and then only maybe renaming a few things that might be too cryptic.