在 2022/6/11 0:47, Alper Nebi Yasak 写道:
On 04/06/2022 14:50, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
On 03/06/2022 10:17, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
From: Peng Fan peng.fan@nxp.com
There is case that CONFIG_BINMAN is defined, but CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS is not defined. In that case, there will be build failure. So use CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS to guard the macros, and define CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS in binman syms test.
Tested-by: Tim Harvey tharvey@gateworks.com #imx8m[m,n,p]-venice Signed-off-by: Peng Fan peng.fan@nxp.com
include/binman_sym.h | 2 +- tools/binman/test/Makefile | 2 +- tools/binman/test/generated/autoconf.h | 3 +++ tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms.c | 2 +- tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms_size.c | 2 +- 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/generated/autoconf.h
Reviewed-by: Alper Nebi Yasak alpernebiyasak@gmail.com
Looks like I have misunderstood things here a bit. CONFIG_BINMAN enables you to declare and use symbols. CONFIG_SPL/TPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS declares certain symbols ('u_boot_any'). The name is a bit misleading, as if it enables support for using symbols, and that confused me.
I am not sure, but I think CONFIG_SPL/TPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS are only for certain symbols saying u_boot_any.
Maybe Simon could comment?
I have sent a patch [1] that fixes the build error mentioned here, which should be used instead of this patch. Please:
- Rebase on top of that series [1]
- Maybe drop config changes in 1/8 and 2/8 (they're now unnecessary)
- Disable CONFIG_SPL/TPL/VPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS for i.MX8M boards
- Change the if statement to if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BINMAN)) in patch 5/8
This not work, BINMAN has been enabled for packing images, but we have not generated some i.MX binman symbols for getting exact blob size. So I use binman symbols to get exact blob size in this patchset.
Thanks, Peng.
- Drop this patch 7/8
Sorry for the confusion.
[1] spl: binman: Fix use of undeclared u_boot_any symbols https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kerne...