[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] spl: Make CONFIG_SPL_BUILD contain more functionality

[Zhang Ying-B40530]

________________________________________
From: Tom Rini [tom.rini at gmail.com] on behalf of Tom Rini [trini at ti.com]
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:54 PM
To: Zhang Ying-B40530
Cc: Xie at theia.denx.de; u-boot at lists.denx.de; afleming at gmail.com; Wood at theia.denx.de; Wood Scott-B07421
Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] spl: Make CONFIG_SPL_BUILD contain more functionality

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:26:04PM +0000, Zhang Ying-B40530 wrote:
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Tom Rini [tom.rini at gmail.com] on behalf of Tom Rini [trini at ti.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:20 PM
> To: Zhang Ying-B40530
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; afleming at gmail.com; Xie at theia.denx.de; Wood Scott-B07421
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] spl: Make CONFIG_SPL_BUILD contain more functionality
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:10:49PM +0000, Zhang Ying-B40530 wrote:
>
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Tom Rini [tom.rini at gmail.com] on behalf of Tom Rini [trini at ti.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 12:34 PM
> > To: Zhang Ying-B40530
> > Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Wood Scott-B07421; afleming at gmail.com; Xie Xiaobo-R63061; Zhang Ying-B40530
> > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2] spl: Make CONFIG_SPL_BUILD contain more functionality
> >
> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 05:12:19PM +0800, ying.zhang at freescale.com wrote:
> >
> > > From: Ying Zhang <b40530 at freescale.com>
> > >
> > > There was some functionality will be used in the SPL. They
> > > had been excluded by ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD. Now, put it
> > > into the SPL.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ying Zhang <b40530 at freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > > Compared with the previous version, give up new symbol and delete the line
> > > ifndef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD in common/env_common.c
> >
> > What the heck is going on?  First, you seem to be changing a number of
> > checks from !CONFIG_SPL_BUILD to !CONFIG_SPL_NAND_MINIMAL, and then stop
> > defining CONFIG_SPL_NAND_MINIMAL always and only define it for
> > CONFIG_SPL_BUILD.
> > Next, powerpc uses
> > -ffunction-sections/-fdata-sections/--gc-sections so outside of
> > assembler files, we shouldn't need to be using CONFIG_SPL_BUILD to not
> > build something that's a static function.
> > [Zhang Ying]
> > First, Your understanding is correct.
> > CONFIG_SPL_NAND_MINIMAL has not been used and it suited to express a
> > state(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD && CONFIG_SPL_INIT_MINIMAL && CONFIG_NAND)
> > So, I used !CONFIG_SPL_NAND_MINIMAL to contain some functionality for
> > SD SPL but not for NAND SPL.
> >
> > Second, I tried. If we don't use !CONFIG_SPL_BUILD to build, the SPL size is
> > increased and the SPL size exceeds 4K Bytes. As you know, the NAND SPL
> > for mpc85xx can't large than 4K, Now only a few bytes of free space.
> >
> > Can you please post the everything as a series, including adding the
> > board(s) that need environment in SPL?
> > [Zhang Ying]
> > The patch is split into several in order to facilitate everyone to review.
>
> Right.  So please post a 5 or 10 or whatever part series that shows us
> the end goal as well as each step it takes to go from today to that
> platform working.  Thanks!
> [Zhang Ying]
> So for this patch, are there any problem?
>

Yes. It doesn't seem to do anything.  Which is why I want to see the
series of patches that result in new functionality on some boards, so we
can evaluate the changes in context.
[Zhang Ying]
It seems to be several patches were sent together.