[U-Boot] [PATCH v5] SPL: Makefile: Build a separate autoconf.mk for SPL

[Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/19/2013 06:07 PM, York Sun wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 03:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:20:25PM -0700, York Sun wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2013 12:54 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:47:53PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 16:14 +0800,
>>>>> ying.zhang at freescale.com wrote:
>>>>>> From: Ying Zhang <b40530@freescale.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> No.  You added one line AFAICT.  Preserve the original 
>>>>> author here.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Do we need Ying to send a new version? We can reset the author 
>>> to Joe when applying this patch.
>>> 
>>>>>> SPL defines CONFIG_SPL_BUILD but this does not percolate 
>>>>>> to the autoconf.mk Makefile. As a result the build
>>>>>> breaks when CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is used in the
>>>>>> board-specific include header file. With this, there is a
>>>>>> possibility of having a CONFIG option defined in the
>>>>>> header file but not defined in the Makefile causing all
>>>>>> kinds of build failure and problems.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It also messes things for up, for example, when one
>>>>>> might want to undefine options to keep the SPL small and 
>>>>>> doesn't want to be stuck with the CONFIG options used
>>>>>> for U-boot. Lastly, this also avoids defining special 
>>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_ variables for cases where some options are 
>>>>>> required in U-boot but not in SPL.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We add a spl-autoconf.mk rule that is generated for SPL 
>>>>>> with the CONFIG_SPL_BUILD flag and conditionally include 
>>>>>> it for SPL builds.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joel A Fernandes <joelagnel@ti.com> 
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ying Zhang <b40530@freescale.com> --- 
>>>>>> Change from v4: - No change. Change from v3: - No 
>>>>>> change.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Surely there was *some* change or you wouldn't have 
>>>>> reposted...
>>>> 
>>>> v4 was adding Joel's S-o-b line back to the changelog.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I tried to run MAKEALL for arm and powerpc. Powerpc all passed 
>>> but I am having errors for arm, before applying this patch. I 
>>> am using Linaro's gcc 4.8.2 for arm. Should I use a different 
>>> toolchain? I am not used to work on arm platforms.
>> 
>> That's expected as the Linaro toolchain isn't good for all ARMs. 
>> I'll pass this through some testing locally as well.
> 
> Any suggestion on cross toolchain for ARM. I want to extend my 
> MAKEALL coverage, but don't want to deal with too many varieties
> of toolchains.

ELDK 5.2.x works for all ARM (and MIPS).

- -- 
Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSE2g7AAoJENk4IS6UOR1WMUIP/0adzkiNhsKBhjn39KNCpOSB
mwlRxpPMlDzzlUPWJCcZ+sWuxqRw7tpdq309x6G4ojUU4mXdZGv5kcs22kEJoTze
48GxFJQG30AMk0smgoAS9DgBoHS2UYPTQtnza77HBM9LlvOKzq0X9/xqJBn1jFOK
CJ+BPNh6HbAN3plwd0Oj2QgBvzR0K6yYmsVAhIliDv6KBhLfWA6Rakj4NqSoO3n3
e3zd3v2PR7WGXS0wGmSlCx48ORiSTxuIRY4Y3dZPV0qaxoQ5KuJDw8ASuPmj2YGz
zwSYrFTSbMVuIRB+pXtKRpxu2UjgKS/a0I074WM2ObMoNo00L5o3CWMBbQdllouL
AHdASNbGIm7XWN9SI2lcvOIIKAizoELxnzvB9eETsrzUk5n7YYBeM6yyXeZcpZ6q
hXPSRPyh9vae5rV5hbNs1ReBG+Dr73YtMFcUBUqbcyCHWFxe3O5CFjlPaKdwiQ1X
eIeK+7p4YmCJJJAQy6Qq0RqUuNVPZn6EXUgbuizDRZgny7ssOHya8dQHfLU6+wP6
PcLvTh8ix1bTNKPXye/bzMBc0NrJDVwoa2RQqZBehnSZpTfpu/eHQaIFHJaBxDRl
QQgKCwEkRvcmJsJTrGcrPI6G9h4a74kl7sKmGkhq6rq7qAz1zpm5tsPJ16s4RRwR
GcBF/qLc6iUBntQmAtM9
=JXfU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----