[U-Boot] [PATCH] TPL/SPL: add separate CONFIG_TPL_FRAMEWORK for TPL

[Kever Yang]

Hi Tom,


On 08/28/2018 08:49 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:51:26PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
>
>> SPL_FRAMEWORK is a set of framework feature, we may not need the
>> fromework for both TPL and SPL at the same time, so add a separate
>> one for TPL.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  Makefile              | 2 +-
>>  arch/arm/lib/Makefile | 4 ++--
>>  arch/arm/lib/crt0.S   | 6 +++++-
>>  common/spl/Kconfig    | 9 +++++++++
>>  common/spl/Makefile   | 2 +-
>>  scripts/Makefile.spl  | 4 ++++
>>  6 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
>> index 4b3023b259..68b77d1e43 100644
>> --- a/Makefile
>> +++ b/Makefile
>> @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ endif
>>  endif
>>  ALL-$(CONFIG_TPL) += tpl/u-boot-tpl.bin
>>  ALL-$(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE) += u-boot.dtb
>> -ifeq ($(CONFIG_SPL_FRAMEWORK),y)
>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_TPL_FRAMEWORK),y)
>>  ALL-$(CONFIG_OF_SEPARATE) += u-boot-dtb.img
>>  endif
>>  ALL-$(CONFIG_OF_HOSTFILE) += u-boot.dtb
> We should be adding a new stanza here and not replacing the SPL one I
> would think.
This may not need,  I though this is for TPL because it's just after
target for CONFIG_TPL.
Will drop this part next version.
>
> [snip]
>> diff --git a/common/spl/Kconfig b/common/spl/Kconfig
>> index db1915fe5c..1a2e10b892 100644
>> --- a/common/spl/Kconfig
>> +++ b/common/spl/Kconfig
>> @@ -813,6 +813,15 @@ config TPL
>>  	help
>>  	  If you want to build TPL as well as the normal image and SPL, say Y.
>>  
>> +config TPL_FRAMEWORK
>> +	bool "Support TPL based upon the common TPL framework"
>> +	depends on TPL
>> +	default y
>> +	help
>> +	  Enable the TPL framework under common/spl/.  This framework
>> +	  re-use the all the framework feature from SPL but enable separetely.
>> +	  If unsure, say Y.
> This shouldn't be default y, and the help shouldn't suggest that either
> I think.  My concern with this series is TPL wasn't intended to get too
> featureful.  Our initial constraints are enough that we need something
> to init DDR and load SPL into that as we can't do enough with our
> limited resources to load full U-Boot.  In fact, looking at the follow
> up rockchip specific patch that's more in line what my expectations.  So
> I think you should be able to get TPL to do what you want without
> introducing TPL_FRAMEWORK.  Thanks!
I have to introducing  TPL_FRAMEWORK because the SPL_FRAMEWORK
is shared by TPL and SPL, if I have enable TPL and SPL, then:
- I would like to use TPL without framework(which refers to DM, common
lib and FDT);
- I would like to use SPL with SPL_FRAMEWORK
If there is no TPL_FRAMEWORK, then I'm not sure if I can use the
TINY_FRAMEWORK
to overwrite everything.


I introduce TINY_FRAMEWORK is to remove other program like vector table,
runtime C init, which is not include in SPL_FRAMEWORK now.

Thanks,
- Kever