From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:54:05 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 14/17] spl: introduce CONFIG_SPL_TARGET
In-Reply-To: <20120922001238.GF16051@bill-the-cat> (from trini@ti.com on Fri
	Sep 21 19:12:38 2012)
References: <1348272087-29608-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com>
	<1348272087-29608-15-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com>
	<20120922001238.GF16051@bill-the-cat>
Message-ID: <1348512845.25867.14@snotra>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 09/21/2012 07:12:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 
> > Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the final  
> target
> > on the make command line.  This is a departure from traditional  
> U-Boot practice
> > and results in a lack of build coverage in MAKEALL.
> >
> > Now boards can specify CONFIG_SPL_TARGET to determine what gets  
> built by default.
> > Eventually all SPL boards should specify CONFIG_SPL_TARGET, but for  
> now default
> > to at least building the SPL code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> 
> Note that this is sometimes handled via config.mk fragments:
> ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> ALL-y   += $(OBJTREE)/MLO
> else
> ALL-y   += $(obj)u-boot.img
> endif
> 
> Or similar.  I don't know what's better.

Ah.  I was wondering if there were some magic that existing boards were  
using, but couldn't find it.

I think I'd prefer having a simple CONFIG_SPL_TARGET, and boards that  
need something more complicated can still provide a config.mk  
fragment.  What is the CONFIG_SPL_BUILD test for?  Is ALL-y really  
evaluated twice?

-Scott