[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 2/7] spl: nand: rename the SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS Kconfig option

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 12:16:33 -0500
Scott Wood <oss at buserror.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 13:06 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 02:14:09 -0500
> > Scott Wood <oss at buserror.net> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 08:06 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 20:08:49 -0500
> > > > Scott Wood <oss at buserror.net> wrote:
> > > >    
> > > > > This doesn't work.  CONFIG_SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS will always be defined
> > > > > when SPL is defined, and the user will be forced to enter a value
> > > > > before
> > > > > kconfig will continue (or kconfig will error out in an automated
> > > > > build).    
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, CONFIG_SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS will always be defined, but won't be
> > > > used if CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS is defined in the config header
> > > > file.
> > > > And for the "user will forced to enter a value before Kconfig
> > > > continue" comment, we could just have
> > > > 
> > > > config SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS
> > > >   	hex "Location in NAND to read U-Boot from"
> > > >   	default 0x8000 if NAND_SUNXI
> > > > 	default 0x0
> > > > 	...    
> > > 
> > > If you do that, then that zero will override CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS
> > > from
> > > the header.  
> > 
> > Nope, because the condition is
> > 
> > #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS
> > #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS CONFIG_SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS
> > #endif
> > 
> > and not
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS
> > #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS CONFIG_SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS
> > #endif
> > 
> > So CONFIG_SYS_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS is always preferred over
> > CONFIG_SPL_NAND_U_BOOT_OFFS if it's defined.  
> 
> Ah, right.  Still, I think it would be less confusing to not have two
> different names for the same thing, both of which would be present (albeit
> only one is used) in the legacy case -- especially if we start adding
> references directly to the SPL name in some drivers.  The bool could
> eventually be reversed so that only the legacy targets need it.

I posted a new version with the extra bool option this morning ;).

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com