[U-Boot] [PATCH] sunxi: use CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE everywhere

[Martin Kelly]

[snip as the thread is getting long]

On 06/04/2018 01:21 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 10:16:32AM -0700, Martin Kelly wrote:
>> On 06/01/2018 04:05 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>
>> I can see the issues with new defconfigs, but I'm not sure if it will really
>> be that bad. If we apply this patch against sunxi master, then shouldn't new
>> patches get tested and rebased against it? In that case, if they have not
>> set DEFAULT_FDT_FILE, it will default to "", the boards won't boot, and the
>> mistake must be fixed prior to merging.
> 
> Unless one has tested it with a version prior to your patch, and sends
> it. Not a lot of people are testing with the next branch in the
> various trees.
> 
>> Alternatively if we add the Kconfig boolean, we need to worry about what
>> happens when people have DEFAULT_FDT_FILE set already. I guess we would need
>> to default the new Kconfig boolean to be custom in order to keep those
>> configs from breaking. But if we do that, sunxi will break by default (since
>> sunxi configs don't have the value set).
>>
>> What would you suggest the default value of the new boolean to be?
> 
> config DEFAULT_FDT_FILE_USE_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE
> 	bool "whatever"
> 	default y if ARCH_ROCKCHIP
> 	default y if ARCH_SUNXI
> 
> and in the headers
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE_USE_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE
> #define CONFIG_DEFAULT_FDT_FILE CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE ".dtb"
> #endif
> 
> And that's done.
> 

I didn't know Kconfig can set different default values for each 
architecture like that; that does indeed solve the problem. However, I 
don't think it's a good idea to have sunxi use an alternate mechanism 
than the other boards.

To be clear, are you proposing a general config option that would apply 
to every board? In that case, the header logic would be in a global 
header rather than a board-specific one.

>> Personally, though I think it could be a bit painful through the next merge
>> window, I think fixing this to operate the same way as the rest of the
>> boards is the right long-term decision.
> 
> So far, I've seen two platforms using this, the two representing a
> significant part of the total defconfig number, using the exact same
> value for both. Surely that means there's room for improvement.
> 
> Maxime
>