[U-Boot] [PATCH V3 17/32] imximage.cfg: run files through C preprocessor

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:27:09AM +0200, stefano babic wrote:

[snip]
> One reason to move into the board directory is that there was a decision
> to move rules related to only one arch or SOC where they belong to, that
> is in the corresponding arch/ or board/ directory.

I'll admit that maybe my make-fu is off, but that idea doesn't work, at
least for SPL.  So I'd really like someone to make that work first.

> > 2. Easy to clean the temporary generated file. The main Makefile
> > deletes files with .pcfgtmp extension.
> > 
> > 3. The file referred to by boards.cfg actually exists before the build
> > starts.
> 
> This is true, but I do not understand which is the advantage. A lot of
> files are generated, also .c or .S files. If it exists or not, it does
> not matter.
> 
> > 
> > 4. The temporary file can be placed in an out-of-tree directory for
> > make -O builds
> > 
> > Using the file extension to determine whether to use the preprocessor is
> > also
> > what gcc uses to preprocess ".S" files while skipping this for ".s" files.
> > 
> > I believe that at least other mx6 boards will quickly change to using
> > the preprocessor
> > as well to add support for solo/duallite, so total line count should
> > eventually be
> > less with changes to the main makefile.
> 
> Ok, but if this true, the rule should be moved to the mx6 directory, and
> should not be valid for other i.MX that do not need it.

Introducing slight differences to the image generation rules per family
generation when we could just have one rule that works fine for all
generations is one worry I have about the notion of moving things out of
a top level Makefile and putting them elsewhere.

> > Having said that, I really have no problem going your route, I just
> > don't prefer it.
> > Let me know.
> 
> Let's wait to know Tom's opinion.

How about this, if we convert the existing cfg files to '@' comments and
use the LDSCRIPT style preprocessor rule instead of another one?  I
assume there's improvements that could be done to the mx5 ones if we
preprocessed them.  Or no?  I'm looking for opinions here myself still..

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20121011/773c4331/attachment.pgp>