Hi Simon,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 1:00 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Masahiro,
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 20:36, Masahiro Yamada masahiroy@kernel.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:23 AM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Masahiro,
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 10:36, Masahiro Yamada masahiroy@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:44 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:32:03PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:04 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote: > > Hi Masahiro, > > On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 at 20:31, Masahiro Yamada masahiroy@kernel.org wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:38 AM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote: > > > > > > +Masahiro Yamada > > > > > > > > > > I do not know. > > This seems a shorthand in Kconfig level. > > > > > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config SPL_' | wc > > 540 1080 24872 > > masahiro@zoe:~/ref/u-boot(master)$ rgrep '^config TPL_' | wc > > 163 326 7462 > > > > If hundreds of duplications are not manageable, > > go for it, but kconfig will be out-of-sync from the > > upstream Kconfig. > > Yes that's right, it is a shorthand in Kconfig. > > The counts above understand the problem a little since quite a few > CONFIG options without an SPL prefix are used in SPL. We don't have > tools to estimate how many, and we sometimes add a new symbol to 'gain > control' of a particular feature in a phase. > > My intent in sending this patch was to check whether this support for > configuring multiple related builds (or something like it) could go > upstream, which for Kconfig is Linux, I believe. What do you think?
This complexity is absolutely unneeded for Linux.
So, the answer is no.
Well, I think Simon summarized himself a bit shorter here than he did in the patch itself. So, to what extent does the kernel want to consider all of the other projects using the Kconfig language and their needs / use cases?
-- Tom
In principle, only features that are useful for Linux.
I'm disappointed in this attitude. It is the same thing that we saw from the DT bindings until recently.
Sorry, but this is the maintainer's job. Saying no is one of the most important jobs as a maintainer.
I must avoid Kconfig getting Frankenstein mechanisms.
Can you suggest a better approach?
No, I can't.
Kconfig is a configuration system of the Linux kernel, which is monolithic. It was not designed with multi-phase images in mind.
Presumably, Kconfig is good for U-Boot proper, but not for SPL/TPL given the limited memory. There is little room for user's configuration anyway.
U-Boot extended SPL too much. On-chip RAM is not supposed to run DT, DM, FIT. With SPL kept simple and ad-hoc, none of CONFIG_SPL_OF_CONTROL, SPL_DM, SPL_FIT was unneeded. "bootph-*" properties were unneeded either.
This is a U-Boot-specific problem. Please solve it in U-Boot.
Masahiro Yamada
Kconfig has small piece of code that is useful for other projects, for example,
#ifndef CONFIG_ #define CONFIG_ "CONFIG_" #endifwhich might be useful for Buildroot, but this is exceptionally small.
How about refactoring patches that would make a possible implementation easier to maintain, like [1] ? Would they be acceptable?
Code refactoring is welcome, but [1] is not applicable. U-Boot kconfig is synced with Linux 4.20, way behind the mainline Linux.
Sure, I wasn't suggesting that exact patch. It should be easy enough to move to the latest version. It sounds like it may be possible to make the Frankenstein patches easier to maintain out of tree, if we go that way.
The multi-phase is too cluttered, and that is not what Linux wants to have.
Clearly it is not useful to Linux, which only has one build.
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230212231638.1134219-61-s...
Regards, Simon
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada