Hi
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 9:25 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org 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.
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.
+1 I just prefer CONFIG_XPL_BUILD change, or people need to change slides ;)
MIchael
Regards, Simon