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

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:11:35PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:

> 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.

First, please make sure that your next series here has been through
travis-ci or you've built some of the PowerPC targets (say
./tools/buildman/buildman.py p1_p2) as I'm pretty sure TPL_FRAMEWORK
being on by default breaks them.

Next, I'm still not quite following, sorry.  The way TPL is used
normally today (again, see PowerPC for the non-rockchip examples) does
not rely on the spl framework, and that's intentional as they have
extremely limited resources.  I still think you should be able to rework
things such that you don't need TPL_FRAMEWORK being set to them
overwrite most of it.  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20180828/43664362/attachment.sig>