From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:05:51 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 14/17] spl: introduce CONFIG_SPL_TARGET In-Reply-To: <20120924190304.GH1797@bill-the-cat> (from trini@ti.com on Mon Sep 24 14:03:04 2012) Message-ID: <1348517151.25867.17@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 09/24/2012 02:03:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:54:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > > 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 > > > > > >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? > > I'm not sure. And thinking about what Wolfgang said in the other > thread > about SoC specific Makefile fragment for the custom rules, it might > work > out easily enough to convert things like this. Right, s/boards/SoCs/ > And yes, unless I'm > missing something, we evaulate everything again for the SPL build (and > each side of that if/else only would make sense in that context). OK, it's not that you evaluate everything (most makefiles, yes, but I don't think this applies to the toplevel makefile) so much as that spl/Makefile has its own ALL-y. -Scott