[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/42] Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SPL_..._SUPPORT to Kconfig

[Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>]

Hello Simon,

Am 24.08.2016 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Glass:
> This series moves all the CONFIG_SPL_..._SUPPORT options to Kconfig and
> fixes up existing boards to continue to build.
 >
> It also adds a few small but useful features to moveconfig.
>
> There is existing work going on in this area, so some of these patches may
> be superseded. It has taken me a while to get this building cleanly. But I
> have run out of time so want to get this out.
>
> As mentioned on a recent thread [1] there is some confusion about whether an
> option means enabling driver support or media support. Andrew's recent
> series seems like a good vehicle to tidy that up. But I hope this series
> will make it easier.
>
> There are a few strange features of this conversion. The main difficulty is
> that some PowerPC boards do things like this in their board config file:
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_TPL_BUILD
>   #define CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT
>   #define CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT
>   #else
>   #define CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT
>   #endif
>
> This means that TPL reuses the SPL options. We can't support this in Kconfig
> so I have added a small number of CONFIG_TPL_xxx_SUPPORT options to cope
> with this. This made the conversion more painful than it should have been.
>
> A related issue is boards using a common header file and setting options only
> for SPL:
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>   #define CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT
>   #endif
>
> This is not noticed by moveconfig so we have to clean it up manually. Also
> there are a few incorrect things where Kconfig options are set with #define:
>
>   #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
>   #define CONFIG_SPL_DM
>   #endif
>
> Finally, many defconfig files are not ordered correctly, resulting in larger
> patches than we might like. It would be great to have a solution for this,
> perhaps with buildman providing a warning. But it might slow down
> development.
>
> The series is fully build-tested (for bisectability) and causes no failures
> for the boards that already pass. The following boards fail for me at
> present on mainline (which I have not yet looked at):

Thanks!

Hmm... may you want to check, if your patchserie does not
break any existing board? I wrote a tbot testcase for this, see:

http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-June/258119.html

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany