Re: RFC: Support for U-Boot phases in Kconfig

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 06:56:31AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
[snip]
> Having thought a bit more, perhaps we have the wrong attitude to
> Kconfig. The CONFIG() macro I am talking about works by building an
> xxx or SPL_xxx config. If we have separate autoconf.h files for each
> phase (autoconf_spl.h etc.) then we don't actually need this. We just
> need to include the correct file. Any SPL_xxx config can be written as
> xxx. Similarly the Makefile rules can drop the $(P) I was proposing.
> 
> We can, in fact, generate separate autoconf.h files for each phase
> today, with no other changes. Unless I am missing something...?

If we can spit out {spl_,tpl_,}autoconf.h files that might help a bit.
But would it help with the recent case of SPL has SATA+AHCI+!PCI while
full U-Boot has SATA+AHCI+!PCI AND SATA+AHCI+PCI ?  Today we can't
support the SPL case without adding the handful of SPL_xxx symbols so
that we can say we have SATA+AHCI without PCI.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]