[U-Boot] switching to single .config configuration issues

[Yehuda Yitschak]

Hey Simon, Masahiro

May I suggest an alternative solution to this issue.

What if each Kconfigs option could be set as "y" (compile for u-boot only )or "s" (compile for u-boot and SPL)
Just as the kernel can set Kconfig to "y" or "m".

With minor modifications to the Makefile, SPL target will compile "obj-s" and u-boot  target will compile "obj-s" and "obj-y" 

What do you think ? 

Yehuda  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sjg at google.com [mailto:sjg at google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:06
> To: Hanna Hawa
> Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Yehuda Yitschak; Masahiro Yamada
> Subject: Re: switching to single .config configuration issues
> 
> +Masahiro (new address)
> 
> Hi Hanna,
> 
> On 27 April 2015 at 07:43, Hanna Hawa <hannah at marvell.com> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >
> >
> > I’m working on the latest u-boot 2015.04 trying to rebase my
> > repository to latest code.
> 
> I would suggest going with upstream/master (targeting 2015.07) since there
> are several driver model changes since 2015.04 (USB, PCI, Ethernet). There
> are still patches going in but the bulk of it should be there.
> 
> >
> > And I have question regarding patch e02ee2548afe (kconfig: switch to
> > single .config configuration)
> >
> >
> >
> > Issues that I face in the current solution (single .config):
> >
> > For my usage most of the CONFIG options will not supported in the SPL,
> > we need the SPL very tiny and most of the CONFIG will be enabled in
> > the u-boot, need to undef/disable(set=n) for every CONFIG in
> > scripts/Makefile.uncmd_spl/ include/config_uncmd_spl.h
> >
> > Also for future usage if we want to delete the defines of the commands
> > from the include file and move it to defconfig file, then need to
> > undef them in the SPL code.
> 
> Masahiro is the expert here. The idea is to use SPL-specific options for SPL.
> For example CONFIG_SPL_I2C_SUPPORT. This is much the same as before.
> 
> I suggest you create some SPL options for your new features, so that they
> are only enabled in SPL when you want them.
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you planning for another solution for this issue?
> 
> Also, if you push your tree to github (or somewhere) I or Masahiro might be
> able to comment on specifics.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon