Hi Tom, On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 10:50, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 07:07:23AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We have the term 'SPL', which has a dual meaning. It is both a > > particular phase of U-Boot (the one that loads U-Boot proper) and a > > generic name for any pre-proper phase. > > > > You can see that in a few areas, but for example CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is > > enabled for TPL and VPL builds, not just SPL. > > > > I propose to rename the generic term from SPL to xPL (meaning any PL > > phase), leaving SPL to just refer to the phase before U-Boot proper. > > > > The symbol would be CONFIG_XPL but in documentation we would talk of > > xPL, with a lower-case X, so it is more obvious that it refers to any > > phase. > > > > What do you think? > > I still worry this is just another part of the long symptom of needing > to re-work how we configure / build as we have 1 case of "build things > this way" (full U-Boot) and N cases of "build things another way" (SPL, > TPL, VPL, UPL?). And really we need a way to short-hand > "fooboard_defconfig" means "fooboard_spl_defconfig + > fooboard_tpl_defconfig + fooboard_SOMETHING_defconfig".
IMO my XPL series does this, at least for some definition of this. I'd really like to get that in as it would make all of this much easier. > > But on the flip side, I also suppose replacing CONFIG_SPL_BUILD with > CONFIG_XPL_BUILD would be less confusing. Yes. What do you think of E's idea of renaming all the options? I quite liked it when I read it, but now I am thinking that having everything be xPL is quite a nice convention. If we have SETUP_... and TINY_... it is less clear that they are related. Regards, Simon