[U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what belongs in the header file? example: i'm now messing with a MPC8315ERDB, and here's configs/MPC8315ERDB_defconfig in its entirety: CONFIG_PPC=y CONFIG_MPC83xx=y CONFIG_TARGET_MPC8315ERDB=y CONFIG_OF_BOARD_SETUP=y CONFIG_OF_STDOUT_VIA_ALIAS=y CONFIG_BOOTDELAY=6 CONFIG_HUSH_PARSER=y CONFIG_CMD_I2C=y CONFIG_CMD_USB=y # CONFIG_CMD_SETEXPR is not set CONFIG_CMD_MII=y CONFIG_CMD_PING=y CONFIG_CMD_EXT2=y CONFIG_SYS_NS16550=y CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT=y based on my current understanding, the absolute minimum i would need in this defconfig file is just the first three lines: CONFIG_PPC=y CONFIG_MPC83xx=y CONFIG_TARGET_MPC8315ERDB=y which is sufficient to get me to the corresponding header file include/configs/MPC8315ERDB.h, at which point we're good. but is there a recommended style for what belongs in the defconfig file, and what belongs in the header file? or is that all just personal preference? i do appreciate that if there is a family of closely-related target boards, the header file can further include a "common" header file to avoid duplication but, beyond that, any style rules? rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a > board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what > belongs in the header file? The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a > > board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what > > belongs in the header file? > > The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are > things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things > like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. and what about the advantage of header files that allow the inclusion of other header files to reduce duplication? will config files be extended to allow the same thing? (they don't do that now, do they?) rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
Am 20.07.2016 um 10:56 schrieb Robert P. J. Day: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Tom Rini wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> >>> >>> kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a >>> board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what >>> belongs in the header file? >> >> The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are >> things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things >> like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. > > and what about the advantage of header files that allow the > inclusion of other header files to reduce duplication? will config > files be extended to allow the same thing? (they don't do that now, do > they?) Use Kconfig files for setting defaults or adding selects. Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:21:16PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 20.07.2016 um 10:56 schrieb Robert P. J. Day: > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Tom Rini wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a > >>> board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what > >>> belongs in the header file? > >> > >> The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are > >> things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things > >> like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. > > > > and what about the advantage of header files that allow the > > inclusion of other header files to reduce duplication? will config > > files be extended to allow the same thing? (they don't do that now, do > > they?) > > Use Kconfig files for setting defaults or adding selects. Yes. I am in favour of making heavy use of "default y if ..." constructs and when possible some meta-options such as DISTRO_DEFAULTS -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a > > board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what > > belongs in the header file? > > The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are > things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things > like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. perhaps i haven't thought this through sufficiently, but it seems like moving all target configuration to the *_defconfig files and Kbuild system is going to require a fair bit of variable renaming. as i recall from the linux kernel coding style, any variables that begin with "CONFIG_" are meant to be defined in a Kconfig file somewhere, so if variables are moved from header files to a Kconfig file to be part of Kbuild, would that not require renaming them if they don't begin with "CONFIG_"? unless there's no plan to try to keep that standard. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] what is the *recommended* split between defconfig file and header file?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:24:10AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:15:47AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > kind of a style question but what is the preferred way to define a > > > board in the sense of what belongs in the defconfig file and what > > > belongs in the header file? > > > > The header files will eventually go away. Most of the contents are > > things that could be, but haven't yet been, converted. A few things > > like default environment are going to be harder to figure out. > > perhaps i haven't thought this through sufficiently, but it seems > like moving all target configuration to the *_defconfig files and > Kbuild system is going to require a fair bit of variable renaming. > > as i recall from the linux kernel coding style, any variables that > begin with "CONFIG_" are meant to be defined in a Kconfig file > somewhere, so if variables are moved from header files to a Kconfig > file to be part of Kbuild, would that not require renaming them if > they don't begin with "CONFIG_"? unless there's no plan to try to keep > that standard. No, you're right, there are a number of things we have today that are in CONFIG namespace but aren't really configurable options, so we'll be renaming those as we hit them. But at the end of the day it will result in a more easily customizable system too. -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
