Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86

[Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>]

On 23/05/2022 17:10, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 06:28:44AM +0000, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86
>>>
>>> Why are you mentioning LTO in the commit message?  When I read the
>>> commit message it sounds like you're saying the problem is that LTO doesn't
>>> like how this symbol is handled, but if LTO was disabled, everything would be
>>> fine.  If it's not LTO-related, please re-word the message instead.
>>
>> Sorry, I could reword the commit message, but currently I have no better
>> idea to address the issue unless use X86 as a guard in the code as this
>> patch does. If you agree the code in this patch, I could reword commit msg
>> and send v5.
> 
> Well, lets see what Alper says in the other part of the thread.  I'd
> really like to solve this not work around this.  But I'll take
> documenting the problem for the person that has X86 && LTO as good
> enough for the moment.

Alternatively, I think we can decide that all binman symbols are
optional, and not raise an error when we can't find a value for them.
They are de-facto optional anyway: people can use the non-binman-image
build artifacts (which binman doesn't update wrt. symbols), thus the
code that uses binman symbols should assume their values can be missing.