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

[Yehuda Yitschak]

Hey Simon

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sjg at google.com [mailto:sjg at google.com] On Behalf Of Simon Glass
> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2015 21:55
> To: Yehuda Yitschak
> Cc: Masahiro Yamada; Hanna Hawa; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] switching to single .config configuration issues
> 
> Hi Yehuda,
> 
> On 30 April 2015 at 01:21, Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday at marvell.com> wrote:
> > Hey Masahiro
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Masahiro Yamada [mailto:yamada.masahiro at socionext.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:46
> >> To: Yehuda Yitschak
> >> Cc: Simon Glass; Hanna Hawa; u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] switching to single .config configuration
> >> issues
> >>
> >> Hi Yehuda,
> >>
> >>
> >> 2015-04-29 14:23 GMT+09:00 Yehuda Yitschak <yehuday at marvell.com>:
> >> > 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 ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >>
> >> A little comments.
> >>
> >> - Is there any possibility that some files should be compiled for SPL only?
> >>    (I do not think we have much.)
> >>
> >>    Perhaps,   obj-y : for U-boot only
> >>               obj-s : for SPL only
> >>               oby-ys: for both
> >>       I am not sure..
> >
> > How about "a" (as in all targets) instead of "sy". It will look better
> > in the menuconfig square brackets Maybe TPL should also be added as "t"
> option.
> >
> >>
> >> - This idea is only applicable for bool options.
> >>   We still have to keep duplication for int/hex options   such as
> >> CONFIG_SPL_TEXT_BASE.
> >>
> >>   But, this idea will help clean up much because most of configs are
> boolean.
> 
> I am still not sure what sorts of things are getting compiled int SPL, and thus
> causing problems. Can you please provide a few details?

We are looking for a very small SPL image that will fit into internal SRAM. 
Therefore we want to compile the minimal set of drivers into the SPL.
We have added all our drivers to Kconfig infrastructure (not mainlined yet) and so each driver 
We add to u-boot (like PCIe) will be added to SPL and would require manual removal using the dedicated H file

> 
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >> Masahiro Yamada
> >>
> >>
> >> >> -----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
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > U-Boot mailing list
> >> > U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> >> > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best Regards
> >> Masahiro Yamada
> 
> Regards,
> Simon