Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message f5723h$lmm$1@sea.gmane.org you wrote:
Did you have anything in mind for Makefile trickery? The best example I could find is TEXT_BASE, and that fits well as a kbuild configuration parameter.
Many boards pass additional configuration information from the Makefile - see for example the MPC8360EMDS* or the TQM8260_* boards. Less obvious but even more tricky is what the ARM Integrator boards do by running the board/integrator*/split_by_variant.sh scripts.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
My 0.01 euro (lousy exchange rate)...
Doing the config in the makefile via differently named targets is Really Tricky[tm] in that it works quite well but makes me feel icky when I think about it. Parsing the target and echoing config parameters into a config.mk config file via the rule is not a good way to do config IMHO.
I don't know what is done in the ARM area, but the 8xx, 82xx, and 83xx boards that use this method could just as well use a kconfig style configuration system. All they are doing is selecting boot high/low, memory configurations, processor speeds, board flavors, LCD support, etc. All those sound _exactly_ like kconfig stuff to me.
Downsides? How do you do the equivalent of "MAKEALL"? We will need a default config file for each target that is currently supported and modify MAKEALL to do (the equivalent of) make mrproper && make defconfig && make for each class of targets that MAKEALL currently supports.
Best regards, gvb