Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1453 bytes --]

On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 08:33:56AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86
> > 
> > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:10:40PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > >
> > > set the symbol as weak not work if LTO is enabled. Since u_boot_any is
> > > only used on X86 for now, so guard it with X86, otherwise build break
> > > if we use BINMAN_SYMBOLS on i.MX.
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com> #imx8m[m,n,p]-venice
> > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> > > ---
> > >  common/spl/spl.c     | 8 ++++++--
> > >  common/spl/spl_ram.c | 4 ++++
> > >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > I think we long term need to figure this out and address it so LTO works.  But
> > for now can you please guard this with a test on LTO instead, so it's clear
> > where the problem is?
> 
> Sorry, I could not get your point about guard with a test on LTO.
> 
> Actually binman weak symbol will report a warning log if there is no u_boot_any
> binman symbol. Since only X86 use it, I guard with X86.

Why are you mentioning LTO in the commit message?  When I read the
commit message it sounds like you're saying the problem is that LTO
doesn't like how this symbol is handled, but if LTO was disabled,
everything would be fine.  If it's not LTO-related, please re-word the
message instead.

-- 
Tom

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