Re: [PATCH 7/8] binman_sym: guard with CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(BINMAN_SYMBOLS)

Alper Nebi Yasak
2022-06-10T16:47:35Z

On 04/06/2022 14:50, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 10:17, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>
>> There is case that CONFIG_BINMAN is defined, but
>> CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS is not defined. In that case, there will be
>> build failure. So use CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS to guard the macros, and
>> define CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS in binman syms test.
>>
>> Tested-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com> #imx8m[m,n,p]-venice
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>> ---
>> include/binman_sym.h | 2 +-
>> tools/binman/test/Makefile | 2 +-
>> tools/binman/test/generated/autoconf.h | 3 +++
>> tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms.c | 2 +-
>> tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms_size.c | 2 +-
>> 5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/generated/autoconf.h
>
> Reviewed-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>

Looks like I have misunderstood things here a bit. CONFIG_BINMAN enables
you to declare and use symbols. CONFIG_SPL/TPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS declares
certain symbols ('u_boot_any'). The name is a bit misleading, as if it
enables support for using symbols, and that confused me.

I have sent a patch [1] that fixes the build error mentioned here, which
should be used instead of this patch. Please:

- Rebase on top of that series [1]
- Maybe drop config changes in 1/8 and 2/8 (they're now unnecessary)
- Disable CONFIG_SPL/TPL/VPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS for i.MX8M boards
- Change the if statement to if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BINMAN)) in patch 5/8
- Drop this patch 7/8

Sorry for the confusion.

[1] spl: binman: Fix use of undeclared u_boot_any symbols