[U-Boot] RFQ: Makefile cleanup

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:16:43 +0200
Albert ARIBAUD <albert.aribaud at free.fr> wrote:

> > 2) I accept the prefix, and generate a definition for
> >     CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE.  In the config.mk file, I replace the
> >     "sinclude ... config.tmp" by something like this:
> >
> > 	ifdef CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE
> > 	TEXT_BASE = $(CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE)
> > 	endif
> >
> >
> >     pro: The lines in boards.cfg don't get too long.
> >
> >     con: I have to adapt a number or board specific config.mk files
> >          (but I have to do this anyway to remove the then obsolete
> >          "sinclude" lines.
> >
> >
> > At the moment my preference goes with 2), but I would like to hear if
> > this approach seems acceptable to others as well.

How about having the board's config.mk do something like:

ifdef CONFIG_NAND_SPL
TEXT_BASE = ...
endif

?

> Humble proposal: admit an options field of the form
> 
> 	boardname[:[cfgopt1[,cfgopt2...]][:<opt1>[,<opt2>]]
> 
> I.e., have two sets of definitions, cfgopts and opts, separated by 
> colons; each cfgopt or opt is of the form SYM or SYM=VAL. The cfgopt set 
> gets the CONFIG_ prefix, the opt set does not.

Well, that addresses the line length argument, at the cost of complexity
and syntax obscurity.  But I changing TEXT_BASE to CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE
is something we probably want to do anyway.  If we ever switch to
kconfig, and we want the text base to be part of that, it will have to
start with CONFIG_.

Even if we don't change TEXT_BASE now, we don't want to encourage
people to add any new symbols in the second category.  If we do add
some hack to the boards.cfg syntax for this, IMHO it ought to be just
for TEXT_BASE and not a generalized symbol setter.

Are we dropping the MK_ that mkconfig currently adds, BTW?  Some
examples in the introductory text use it and some don't.

-Scott