[PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86

[Peng Fan (OSS)]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86
> 
> On Sat, May 21, 2022 at 08:33:56AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/8] spl: guard u_boot_any with X86
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:10:40PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > set the symbol as weak not work if LTO is enabled. Since
> > > > u_boot_any is only used on X86 for now, so guard it with X86,
> > > > otherwise build break if we use BINMAN_SYMBOLS on i.MX.
> > > >
> > > > Tested-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey at gateworks.com> #imx8m[m,n,p]-venice
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan at nxp.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  common/spl/spl.c     | 8 ++++++--
> > > >  common/spl/spl_ram.c | 4 ++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I think we long term need to figure this out and address it so LTO
> > > works.  But for now can you please guard this with a test on LTO
> > > instead, so it's clear where the problem is?
> >
> > Sorry, I could not get your point about guard with a test on LTO.
> >
> > Actually binman weak symbol will report a warning log if there is no
> > u_boot_any binman symbol. Since only X86 use it, I guard with X86.
> 
> Why are you mentioning LTO in the commit message?  When I read the
> commit message it sounds like you're saying the problem is that LTO doesn't
> like how this symbol is handled, but if LTO was disabled, everything would be
> fine.  If it's not LTO-related, please re-word the message instead.

Sorry, I could reword the commit message, but currently I have no better
idea to address the issue unless use X86 as a guard in the code as this
patch does. If you agree the code in this patch, I could reword commit msg
and send v5.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> --
> Tom