[U-Boot-Users] Some questions about what is plannedtoimproveU-Boot configuration...

[Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren@smiths-aerospace.com>]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <f5723h$lmm$1@sea.gmane.org> you wrote:
>> Did you have anything in mind for Makefile trickery? The best example I 
>> could find is TEXT_BASE, and that fits well as a kbuild configuration 
>> parameter.
> 
> Many  boards  pass  additional  configuration  information  from  the
> Makefile  - see for example the MPC8360EMDS* or the TQM8260_* boards.
> Less obvious but even more tricky is what the ARM  Integrator  boards
> do by running the board/integrator*/split_by_variant.sh scripts.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk

My 0.01 euro (lousy exchange rate)...

Doing the config in the makefile via differently named targets is Really 
Tricky[tm] in that it works quite well but makes me feel icky when I 
think about it.  Parsing the target and echoing config parameters into a 
config.mk config file via the rule is not a good way to do config IMHO.

I don't know what is done in the ARM area, but the 8xx, 82xx, and 83xx 
boards that use this method could just as well use a kconfig style 
configuration system.  All they are doing is selecting boot high/low, 
memory configurations, processor speeds, board flavors, LCD support, 
etc.  All those sound _exactly_ like kconfig stuff to me.

Downsides?  How do you do the equivalent of "MAKEALL"?  We will need a 
default config file for each target that is currently supported and 
modify MAKEALL to do (the equivalent of)
   make mrproper && make defconfig && make
for each class of targets that MAKEALL currently supports.

Best regards,
gvb