[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 14/17] spl: introduce CONFIG_SPL_TARGET

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:54:05PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 09/21/2012 07:12:38 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> >On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 07:01:24PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> >> Currently it seems that SPLs rely on the user to specify the
> >final target
> >> on the make command line.  This is a departure from traditional
> >U-Boot practice
> >> and results in a lack of build coverage in MAKEALL.
> >>
> >> Now boards can specify CONFIG_SPL_TARGET to determine what gets
> >built by default.
> >> Eventually all SPL boards should specify CONFIG_SPL_TARGET, but
> >for now default
> >> to at least building the SPL code.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
> >
> >Note that this is sometimes handled via config.mk fragments:
> >ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
> >ALL-y   += $(OBJTREE)/MLO
> >else
> >ALL-y   += $(obj)u-boot.img
> >endif
> >
> >Or similar.  I don't know what's better.
> 
> Ah.  I was wondering if there were some magic that existing boards
> were using, but couldn't find it.
> 
> I think I'd prefer having a simple CONFIG_SPL_TARGET, and boards
> that need something more complicated can still provide a config.mk
> fragment.  What is the CONFIG_SPL_BUILD test for?  Is ALL-y really
> evaluated twice?

I'm not sure.  And thinking about what Wolfgang said in the other thread
about SoC specific Makefile fragment for the custom rules, it might work
out easily enough to convert things like this.  And yes, unless I'm
missing something, we evaulate everything again for the SPL build (and
each side of that if/else only would make sense in that context).

-- 
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/20120924/5168a99d/attachment.pgp>