[PATCH v3 4/5] Image size checks: Deduplicate Makefile

[Philip Oberfichtner]

On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 03:02:20PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 9/3/25 12:56 PM, Philip Oberfichtner wrote:
> > Deduplicate some redundancies within the SIZE_CHECK code in the toplevel
> > Makefile. No functional changes.
> > 
> > Note: To make this work for the special case of SPL, spl_size_limit.c
> > has to print an empty string "" instead of zero when there is no size
> > limit in place.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Philip Oberfichtner <pro at denx.de>
> > ---
> >   Makefile               | 45 +++++++++++-------------------------------
> >   tools/spl_size_limit.c |  4 ++--
> >   2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > index a17d8b57196..b6f01591ee9 100644
> > --- a/Makefile
> > +++ b/Makefile
> > @@ -428,8 +428,9 @@ KBUILD_HOSTLDLIBS   := $(HOST_LFS_LIBS) $(HOSTLDLIBS)
> >   # Check ths size of a binary:
> >   # Args:
> >   #   $1: File to check
> > -#   #2: Size limit in bytes (decimal or 0xhex)
> > +#   #2: Size limit in bytes (decimal or 0xhex), always return OK if undefined
> 
> You should be able to use the HAS_ variables to correctly test for and
> handle the undefined case .

In general, I agree. But this would mean to reintroduce the multiply
duplicated Makefile bloat à la:

	ifeq ($(CONFIG_HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT),y)
	BOARD_SIZE_CHECK= @ $(call size_check,$@,$(CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT))
	else
	BOARD_SIZE_CHECK =
	endif


That's why after all I preferred my "test -z" solution. Is there maybe
a third way I am missing out on?

What do you think about giving size_check another argument, i.e. 
call size_check,$@,$(CONFIG_HAS_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT),$(CONFIG_BOARD_SIZE_LIMIT)

Any other suggestions?