On Tuesday 10 February 2009 14:42:20 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Mike Frysinger, > > In message <200902101357.29507.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote: > > > > $(BFIN_BOARDS:%=%_config) : unconfig > > > > @$(MKCONFIG) $(@:_config=) blackfin blackfin $(@:_config=) > > > > + @$(MAKE) -s -B $(obj)include/autoconf.mk > > > > + @$(MAKE) -s -B $(obj)include/autoconf.mk > > > > > > Do you really mean to do this twice? > > > > unfortunately, yes. since some settings in the board config are turned > > into compiler flags and those compiler flags can in turn affect the board > > config, we need to do it twice. first is to make sure the proper cpu > > flags are propagated into the toplevel build env while the second is to > > make sure the autoconf.mk fully reflects the board config. > > Sounds like a design problem to me.
not really. the point is to avoid duplication and considering the method to attain that, sounds pretty good to me. > > i guess i could add a one line comment above each one giving hints about > > why each is needed ... > > That would be the minimum, but given the fact that the top level > Makefile already includes rules to build autoconf.mk I really wonder > if we must do this so often, and if so, then why this is only the > case for blackfin. the top level Makefile includes rules to build it, but it doesnt re-source it once it's been generated. so anything in the top level cannot use things from autoconf.mk (like $(arch)_config.mk). -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
