Hi Tom, On 6 September 2016 at 12:06, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:21:15PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> At present TPL uses the same options as SPL support. In a few cases the board >> config enables or disables the SPL options depending on whether >> CONFIG_TPL_BUILD is defined. >> >> With the move to Kconfig, options are determined for the whole build and >> (without a hack like an #undef in a header file) cannot be controlled in this >> way. >> >> Create new TPL options for these and update users. This will allow Kconfig >> conversion to proceed for these boards. >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > For the record, I think this shows that we need to think about how we > setup and build SPL/TPL/... but I also think we can't fix it until we've > unwound what we have now so it's clear what is and isn't used, what is > and isn't a pain about it and how at the end of the day users also need > to build something, something that works and ideally not spend more time > doing all of that than it takes to actually just build what they want.
Agreed. There must be a better way. IMO we need to move things in stages. Getting to Kconfig is step forward. I took a bit of a look at generalising the build a bit but it seems like something better down later. Masahiro has done a lot of improvements here. My tentative conclusion was that if we could run the build for U-Boot proper and then for SPL using a common Makefile (i.e. without a special Makefile.spl) then we might get somewhere. One day... Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot