HI Quentin,
On Mon, 2 Sept 2024 at 10:57, Quentin Schulz quentin.schulz@cherry.de wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 8/30/24 3:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 15:43, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
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...
We should discuss this sometime as it has come up once or twice before. Given the dependencies between XPL and proper and don't think we can sensible split into separate files, let alone separate the Kconfig. In fact I still believe that we need a small Kconfig-language addition to support this sort of thing and avoid duplicating the rules everywhere*. I believe I might have even done a patch for it. We got
I thought about this already, one of the issues being that it is not guaranteed that the dependencies for a symbol for xPL will be the same for yPL nor for proper, so we still need a way to override those from a redefinition of the symbol (or any other mechanism). I may misremember but I think one of the most straightforward issue was that most (all) proper have DM support while xPL do not necessarily have to (and there usually is the xPL loaded by BootROM, limited by SRAM size, that does not have DM support).
Indeed, they can have different values in TPL and SPL, for example.
My idea for the Kconfig-language addition was [1]
But this has been a big pain of mine, with proper symbols usually being properly configured wrt dependencies and Makefile, but a lot of corner cases missed for xPL, especially wrt Make rules.
Yes...well, my series actually simplified all the rules and got rid of $(SPL_TPL) etc.
FWIW, I've always been confused by CONFIG_SPL_BUILD not being for SPL but anything !proper (to the point I always have to check whenever I see this symbol).
Yes, it is really not what you would expect.
I added an issue at [2]
Regards, Simon
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230219145453.1.Idaaf79c3e... [2] https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/issues/26