From: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] SPL: Makefile: Build a separate autoconf.mk for SPL
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:04:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130819220421.GD17559@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52128C19.6050402@freescale.com>
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.
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130819/de2320a6/attachment.pgp>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-19 22:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-19 8:14 [U-Boot] [PATCH v5] SPL: Makefile: Build a separate autoconf.mk for SPL ying.zhang at freescale.com
2013-08-19 19:47 ` Scott Wood
2013-08-19 19:54 ` Tom Rini
2013-08-19 21:20 ` York Sun
2013-08-19 22:04 ` Tom Rini [this message]
2013-08-19 22:07 ` York Sun
2013-08-20 12:59 ` Tom Rini
2013-08-20 3:15 ` Zhang Ying-B40530
2013-08-20 13:02 ` Tom Rini
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130819220421.GD17559@bill-the-cat \
--to=trini@ti.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox