[U-Boot] [PATCH 11/24] sunxi: introduce extra config option for boot0 header

[Maxime Ripard]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:29:50AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> thanks for having a look!
> 
> On 21/11/16 07:27, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Andre,
> > 
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 02:57:05PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote:
> >> The ENABLE_ARM_SOC_BOOT0_HOOK option is a generic option shared with
> >> other boards. To allow alternative code to be inserted, we create
> >> another, now function specific config symbol on top of it to simplify
> >> later additions. No functional change at this time.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  board/sunxi/Kconfig           | 9 +++++++++
> >>  configs/pine64_plus_defconfig | 2 +-
> >>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/board/sunxi/Kconfig b/board/sunxi/Kconfig
> >> index e1d4ab1..0cd57a2 100644
> >> --- a/board/sunxi/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/board/sunxi/Kconfig
> >> @@ -133,6 +133,15 @@ config MACH_SUN8I
> >>  	bool
> >>  	default y if MACH_SUN8I_A23 || MACH_SUN8I_A33 || MACH_SUN8I_H3 || MACH_SUN8I_A83T
> >>  
> >> +config RESERVE_ALLWINNER_BOOT0_HEADER
> >> +	bool "reserve space for Allwinner boot0 header"
> >> +	select ENABLE_ARM_SOC_BOOT0_HOOK
> >> +	---help---
> >> +	Prepend a 1536 byte (empty) header to the U-Boot image file, to be
> >> +	filled with magic values post build. The Allwinner provided boot0
> >> +	blob relies on this information to load and execute U-Boot.
> >> +	Only needed on 64-bit Allwinner boards so far when using boot0.
> >> +
> > 
> > Is there a reason you can think of to disable it?
> 
> We need it only for booting from boot0, so this series actually makes
> this whole thing obsolete. Since - apart from enlarging the U-Boot
> (proper) image by 1.5KB - it doesn't hurt, though, my idea was to keep
> it in as an option for some time until we are confident that boot0 is no
> longer needed.

Then we don't need to enable it in the defconfig ?

> > If not, you should consider making this enabled by default, so that we
> > don't enable it in all the defconfig for no particular reason.
> 
> I can change the logic, make the Kconfig entry "default y if ARM64", and
> any defconfig could then choose to say "# RESERVE_... is not set".
> 
> Does that make more sense to you?
> 
> What was your major concern about this? Having pointless options in
> various defconfigs?

Yes, Hans was trying to avoid having too much duplication across
defconfig, at least for the common stuff, and I agree with him that we
should keep the defconfig as small as possible.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20161121/63fc2c79/attachment.sig>