From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:45:18 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3 6/7] kconfig: remove unneeded dependency on !SPL_BUILD In-Reply-To: <20150224140519.639F.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> References: <54EB6450.3040809@wwwdotorg.org> <20150224140519.639F.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> Message-ID: <54ECAA9E.6050807@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 02/23/2015 10:05 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > Hi Simon, Stephen, > > > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:44:54 -0700 > Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, >> >> On 23 February 2015 at 10:33, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 02/23/2015 07:02 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>> >>>> On 20 February 2015 at 19:37, Masahiro YAMADA >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2015-02-21 11:28 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass : >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20 February 2015 at 17:54, Masahiro YAMADA >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Simon, Stephen, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015-02-21 3:39 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 20 February 2015 at 10:54, Stephen Warren >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 02/20/2015 10:06 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +Stephen >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Masahiro, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 19 February 2015 at 22:25, Masahiro Yamada >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is not defined in Kconfig, so >>>>>>>>>>> "!depends on SPL_BUILD" and "if !SPL_BUILD" are redundant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>>>>>>>>> index 41f3220..700e2a8 100644 >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -739,9 +739,8 @@ config TEGRA >>>>>>>>>>> bool "NVIDIA Tegra" >>>>>>>>>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>>>>>>>>> select SPL >>>>>>>>>>> - select OF_CONTROL if !SPL_BUILD >>>>>>>>>>> - select CPU_ARM720T if SPL_BUILD >>>>>>>>>>> - select CPU_V7 if !SPL_BUILD >>>>>>>>>>> + select OF_CONTROL >>>>>>>>>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry if I have missed something here. On Tegra most unfortunately >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> SPL uses ARMv4t and U-Boot proper uses ARMv7. In fact that is the >>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>> reason that Tegra has SPL. Doesn't this change with this commit? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. I think behavior is still the same as before. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a single .config, we cannot define two CPUs in Kconfig. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, we only define CPU_V7, for the main processors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For SPL, we override the "CPU" in config.mk >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD >>>>>>> ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA >>>>>>> CPU := arm720t >>>>>>> endif >>>>>>> endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know what you might be saying is, this is too ugly. Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we can do a little better with further rafactoring, >>>>>>> but the basic idea is, SPL of Tegra is a special case. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes I saw that, I understand now. So SPL_BUILD is no longer available >>>>>> in Kconfig, but is still available in Makefiles, right? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, exactly! >>>> >>>> >>>> This all works fine on Tegra for me. However I like to suggest >>>> dropping a few patches in this series. >>>> >>>> I don't think it is worth using ARCH_MALLOC_F_LEN. In fact for me the >>>> Tegra defconfig looks OK and SPL is built correctly. >>>> >>>> My remaining question is about that Tegra seems to want >>>> USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC for SPL but not for U-Boot. I'm not sure why, nor >>>> whether it matters. It seems to work find using it for both. >>> >>> >>> Depending on the toolchain, we actively need USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC for SPL, and >>> don't /need/ it for non-SPL. However, enabling USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC for >>> non-SPL likely won't hurt. >>> >>> The issue is that the libgcc bundled with most compilers is for ARMv7 (since >>> we tend to use ARMv7 compilers, since the main U-boot is built for ARMv7). >>> That bundled libgcc won't work on the ARMv4 that runs the SPL, so we need >>> USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC there. The private libgcc bundled with U-Boot should work >>> fine when built for either CPU, so it is OK to always use it, rather than >>> only use it when strictly needed. >> >> Ah yes, I think I knew that once. So in short Masahiro's patch here >> should be fine. >> > > > Yes, Stephen explained all about my intention. > > I think CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC is also necessary for Raspberry Pi 1 for example. I can't remember if it's already set for the Pi. If not, the toolchains I use happen not to need it:-) > Moreover, I had already posted this patch: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/438360/ > > I'd like to expand the private library to all the ARM boards. > > > Linux Kernel includes the library in its source tree. > > I think it is generally a good idea to reduce the depencendy on particular toolchains. > Agree? I tend to agree. However, in the past, Wolfgang Denk has argued against (ever?) using that option, claiming people should just use the correct toolchain.