On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:29:50AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > thanks for having a look! > > On 21/11/16 07:27, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi Andre, > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 02:57:05PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > >> The ENABLE_ARM_SOC_BOOT0_HOOK option is a generic option shared with > >> other boards. To allow alternative code to be inserted, we create > >> another, now function specific config symbol on top of it to simplify > >> later additions. No functional change at this time. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com> > >> --- > >> board/sunxi/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++ > >> configs/pine64_plus_defconfig | 2 +- > >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/board/sunxi/Kconfig b/board/sunxi/Kconfig > >> index e1d4ab1..0cd57a2 100644 > >> --- a/board/sunxi/Kconfig > >> +++ b/board/sunxi/Kconfig > >> @@ -133,6 +133,15 @@ config MACH_SUN8I > >> bool > >> default y if MACH_SUN8I_A23 || MACH_SUN8I_A33 || MACH_SUN8I_H3 || > >> MACH_SUN8I_A83T > >> > >> +config RESERVE_ALLWINNER_BOOT0_HEADER > >> + bool "reserve space for Allwinner boot0 header" > >> + select ENABLE_ARM_SOC_BOOT0_HOOK > >> + ---help--- > >> + Prepend a 1536 byte (empty) header to the U-Boot image file, to be > >> + filled with magic values post build. The Allwinner provided boot0 > >> + blob relies on this information to load and execute U-Boot. > >> + Only needed on 64-bit Allwinner boards so far when using boot0. > >> + > > > > Is there a reason you can think of to disable it? > > We need it only for booting from boot0, so this series actually makes > this whole thing obsolete. Since - apart from enlarging the U-Boot > (proper) image by 1.5KB - it doesn't hurt, though, my idea was to keep > it in as an option for some time until we are confident that boot0 is no > longer needed.
Then we don't need to enable it in the defconfig ? > > If not, you should consider making this enabled by default, so that we > > don't enable it in all the defconfig for no particular reason. > > I can change the logic, make the Kconfig entry "default y if ARM64", and > any defconfig could then choose to say "# RESERVE_... is not set". > > Does that make more sense to you? > > What was your major concern about this? Having pointless options in > various defconfigs? Yes, Hans was trying to avoid having too much duplication across defconfig, at least for the common stuff, and I agree with him that we should keep the defconfig as small as possible. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot