[U-Boot] [PATCH v1 4/5] CONFIG_SYS_[DI]CACHE_OFF: convert to Kconfig

[Trevor Woerner <trevor@toganlabs.com>]

On Thu 2019-04-18 @ 04:49:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Hi Trevor,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
>  
> > CONFIG_SYS_[DI]CACHE_OFF had been partially converted to Kconfig
> > parameters; only for the ARC architecture. This patch turns these two
> > parameters into Kconfig items everywhere else they are found.
> > 
> > All of the include/configs/* and defconfig changes in this patch are
> > for arm machines only. The Kconfig changes for arc, nds32, riscv,
> > and xtensa have been included since these symbols are found in code
> > under arch/{arc,nds32,riscv,xtensa}, however, no currently-defined
> > include/configs/* or defconfigs for these architectures exist which
> > include these symbols.
> > 
> > These results have been confirmed with tools/moveconfig.py.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Trevor Woerner <trevor@toganlabs.com>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> >  README                                       |  2 --
> >  arch/arc/Kconfig                             |  8 ++++++--
> 
> Even though I'm ok with ARC changes (which are just
> rephrases in help message) I'm wondering if we now may finally
> move both items (for D$ & I$) to a higher level to reduce duplication?
> 
> Acked-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@snopsys.com>

Hi Alexey,

Thank you for your review!

The changes I made to the ARC menu were just to make all the text the same
between all the architectures.

Regarding moving the cache configuration up to a higher level, I had asked
myself the same question as I prepared these patches.

I wouldn't want people to think they have have the ability to affect
whether of not the caches are enabled on architectures where no such
ability is possible in the code. So I either had to enable it on a
per-architecture basis, or I would have to add "depends on ARC || ARM ||
..." if I moved it to a higher level.

In my first pass through this change, I had done exactly that. I had moved
these options out from ARC and put them at a higher level with a "depends
on ..." clause. However I wasn't happy with the result, because, to me, I
would rather be asked questions about enabling caches in the
architecture-specific menus, rather than at a higher-level "general" menu.

Does that seem like a good idea? Does it make more sense to ask people
questions about the cache in an architecture-specific menu rather than in a
general or higher-level menu?

Best regards,
	Trevor