From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jerry Van Baren Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:31:49 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Some questions about what is plannedtoimproveU-Boot configuration... In-Reply-To: <20070618230628.D603C353B71@atlas.denx.de> References: <20070618230628.D603C353B71@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <4677CCB5.5050204@smiths-aerospace.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message 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