[U-Boot] [PATCH 10/13 v3] Makefile: Add Kconfig option CONFIG_SPL_IMAGE to select the SPL binary

[Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com]

On 03.04.2019 15:38, Stefan Roese wrote:
> External E-Mail
> 
> 
> On 03.04.19 14:31, Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03.04.2019 15:22, Stefan Roese wrote:
>>> External E-Mail
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Eugen,
>>>
>>> On 03.04.19 13:21, Stefan Roese wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> If I try to just use menuconfig and change this value to something
>>>>>> else,
>>>>>> build fails. The purpose of this Kconfig is to name the SPL 
>>>>>> filename as
>>>>>> per the config's desire ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or in fact is "which binary file to use to make the Combined 
>>>>>> SPL+U-BOOT
>>>>>> mega image" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, the commit message explains it pretty well, but the Kconfig 
>>>>> help is
>>>>> totally different... hence the confusion sorry.
>>>>> So we need to either make a choice submenu in this Kconfig : either 
>>>>> this
>>>>> or that; or, do exactly what the Kconfig says: rename the output 
>>>>> binary
>>>>> into the value of this Kconfig.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense ?
>>>>
>>>> You are suggesting to add this SPL_IMAGE as choice instead of its
>>>> current implementation? That might be better, yes. Let me look into
>>>> this...
>>>
>>> I did look into this and I would prefer to stay with the original
>>> implementation of the defaults. Changing this into a Kconfig choice
>>> makes this a bit more complex in the Kconfig. Additionally and even
>>> more important (for my personal feeling), the original implementation
>>> is more in line with the BUILD_TARGET implemenation directly below
>>> this new implementation.
>>>
>>> So if you don't object, I would like to send a new version with the
>>> original implementation but with a "better" (more correct)
>>> description in Kconfig.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> This would imply that your new description has to state that if an
>> incorrect binary name is configured here, the build will fail (?)
> 
> No. My main reasoning here is, that this is also not included in the
> description of "BUILD_TARGET" below. Here you can also change the
> selected value (via Kconfig help, no user input needed) to a new value
> that is not supported, which also results in a build error.
> 
> I would like to not make this overly complex here. If a user wants
> to do something stupid by defining this (or some other Kconfig
> option) to an unsupported value, we can't really stop him.
> 
> If you really think this is necessary, I will add a sentence to the
> Kconfig text, to only select "supported" values here. But again, I
> would prefer to not do this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stefan

Allright, but we have to make sure that everyone understands what this 
option does when they try to change it.
So, a bit of rework of the help text is needed.