From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:55:28 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v8 05/13] kconfig: switch to Kconfig In-Reply-To: <20140731203453.GV19374@bill-the-cat> References: <1406696905-25756-6-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> <53D97A31.30805@wwwdotorg.org> <20140731105640.5D19.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> <53D9A502.2040700@wwwdotorg.org> <20140731203453.GV19374@bill-the-cat> Message-ID: <53DAAD40.8010204@wwwdotorg.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 07/31/2014 02:34 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:08:02PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/30/2014 07:56 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>> Hi Stephen, >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:05:21 -0600 >>> Stephen Warren wrote: >>> >>>> On 07/29/2014 11:08 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: >>>>> This commit enables Kconfig. >>>>> Going forward, we use Kconfig for the board configuration. >>>>> mkconfig will never be used. Nor will include/config.mk be generated. >>>>> >>>>> Kconfig must be adjusted for U-Boot because our situation is >>>>> a little more complicated than Linux Kernel. >>>>> We have to generate multiple boot images (Normal, SPL, TPL) >>>>> from one source tree. >>>>> Each image needs its own configuration input. >>>>> >>>>> Usage: >>>>> >>>>> Run "make _defconfig" to do the board configuration. >>>> >>>> This is quite unfortunate; it breaks any scripts that were building U-Boot via "make _config; make". Can't we add another rule to allow the old build commands to work? >>> >>> >>> Technically, yes. I think we can. >>> >>> But I do not like having it permanently. >>> >>> >>> So, we support both *_defconfig and *_config for a while (maybe 6 months or so?) >>> and then remove *_config. >>> >>> Deal? >> >> If the old command-line is ever going to be removed, there's no point >> supporting both at all; I'd have to hack my scripts to support both >> sometime, so I may as well do it now rather than wait. >> >>>> Otherwise, I guess I'll have to hack my scripts to check whether e.g. scripts/multiconfig.py (which was added in this commit) is present in the tree, and execute different build commands based on that... >>> >>> >>> Do you mean, you need to build some different versions of U-boot ? >> >> Yes. I own some scripts that build U-Boot, and they need to work on any >> reasonable version of U-Boot that anyone might want to build. For >> example, they build 2014.07 just fine, and there's no reason they should >> ever stop being able to do that. I obviously also want my scripts to be >> able to build any future version of U-Boot. > > So long as we have MAKEALL (and we'll have the discussion about moving > to buildman sometime soon) this just becomes: > if [ -x tools/genboardscfg.py ]; then > tools/genboardscfg.py > fi > > MAKEALL machine-name There's now a large disadvantage to MAKEALL; it takes longer to run that to build U-Boot itself, since it must auto-generate boards.cfg. Perhaps that's only done once, or when the data changes. Also, is MAKEALL an/the official way to build U-Boot, or just a useful tool? I have the impression that running "make" is the official way to build U-Boot, but MAKEALL/buildman are useful wrapper tools if you want to do batch builds etc.