select default commands in Kconfig

Now when we may select commands via menuconfig let's adjust default settings with "config_cmd_default.h".

As the next step we may get rid of "config_cmd_default.h" inclusion in "include/configs/*.h" and "config_cmd_default.h" itself.

Signed-off-by Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>

Cc Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>

Cc Tom Rini <[email protected]>

---
 common/Kconfig | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

common/Kconfig +0 -0

index fd84fa0..cbc4f5b 100644

Hi Alexey,

2015-01-03 22:20 GMT+09:00 Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>:

Quoted 5 lines

Now when we may select commands via menuconfig let's adjust default settings with "config_cmd_default.h".

As the next step we may get rid of "config_cmd_default.h" inclusion in "include/configs/*.h" and "config_cmd_default.h" itself.

Thanks for working on this, but I think this patch changes the behavior.

Some boards include <config_cmd_default.h> and then undefine unnecessary commands.

For example, include/configs/snapper9260.h

#include <config_cmd_default.h>
#undef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#undef CONFIG_CMD_FPGA
#undef CONFIG_CMD_IMI
#undef CONFIG_CMD_IMLS
#undef CONFIG_CMD_LOADS
#undef CONFIG_CMD_SOURCE

If you set the default value to "y" in Kconfig,
it cannot be undef'ed by C-headers.

Quoted 5 lines

config CMD_BDI
bool "bdinfo"
+ default y
help
Print board info

This change enables CMD_BDI for all the boards.

Please notice the following boards do not want to compile this command.

./include/configs/dbau1x00.h:#undef CONFIG_CMD_BDI

common/Kconfig config CMD_USB · line 209

Quoted 7 lines

common/Kconfig +1 -0

@@ -193,6 +204,7 @@ config CMD_USB
 
 config CMD_FPGA
        bool "fpga"
+       default y
        help
          FPGA support.

Moreover, I doubt some of default commands in <config_cmd_default.h> (I have used only some of commands in <config_cmd_default.h>)

For example, it seems weird to enable CONFIG_CMD_FPGA by default.

I do not think most of boards have FPGA.

Hi Masahiro-san,

Quoted 24 lines · Masahiro YAMADA

Hi Alexey,

2015-01-03 22:20 GMT+09:00 Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>:

Quoted 5 lines

Now when we may select commands via menuconfig let's adjust default settings with "config_cmd_default.h".

As the next step we may get rid of "config_cmd_default.h" inclusion in "include/configs/*.h" and "config_cmd_default.h" itself.

Thanks for working on this, but I think this patch changes the behavior.

Some boards include <config_cmd_default.h> and then undefine unnecessary commands.

For example, include/configs/snapper9260.h

#include <config_cmd_default.h>
#undef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#undef CONFIG_CMD_FPGA
#undef CONFIG_CMD_IMI
#undef CONFIG_CMD_IMLS
#undef CONFIG_CMD_LOADS
#undef CONFIG_CMD_SOURCE

Quoted 2 lines

If you set the default value to "y" in Kconfig,
it cannot be undef'ed by C-headers.

That's true.
But anyway at some point we'll need to switch selection of commands in Kconfig, right?

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

Quoted 26 lines

Quoted 5 lines

config CMD_BDI
bool "bdinfo"
+ default y
help
Print board info

This change enables CMD_BDI for all the boards.

Please notice the following boards do not want to compile this command.

./include/configs/dbau1x00.h:#undef CONFIG_CMD_BDI

common/Kconfig config CMD_USB · line 209

Quoted 7 lines

common/Kconfig +1 -0

@@ -193,6 +204,7 @@ config CMD_USB
 
 config CMD_FPGA
        bool "fpga"
+       default y
        help
          FPGA support.

Moreover, I doubt some of default commands in <config_cmd_default.h> (I have used only some of commands in <config_cmd_default.h>)

For example, it seems weird to enable CONFIG_CMD_FPGA by default.

Quoted 1 line

I do not think most of boards have FPGA.

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

I will highly appreciate input on both topics from others so we'll do some progress here and will make sure all parties are happy.

-Alexey

Hi Alexey,

Quoted 27 lines · On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 20:09:22 +0000 Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>…

Hi Masahiro-san,

Quoted 24 lines · Masahiro YAMADA

Hi Alexey,

2015-01-03 22:20 GMT+09:00 Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>:

Quoted 5 lines

Now when we may select commands via menuconfig let's adjust default settings with "config_cmd_default.h".

As the next step we may get rid of "config_cmd_default.h" inclusion in "include/configs/*.h" and "config_cmd_default.h" itself.

Thanks for working on this, but I think this patch changes the behavior.

Some boards include <config_cmd_default.h> and then undefine unnecessary commands.

For example, include/configs/snapper9260.h

#include <config_cmd_default.h>
#undef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#undef CONFIG_CMD_FPGA
#undef CONFIG_CMD_IMI
#undef CONFIG_CMD_IMLS
#undef CONFIG_CMD_LOADS
#undef CONFIG_CMD_SOURCE

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines

If you set the default value to "y" in Kconfig,
it cannot be undef'ed by C-headers.

That's true.
But anyway at some point we'll need to switch selection of commands in Kconfig, right?

Yes.

Quoted 6 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

Quoted 34 lines

Quoted 27 lines

Quoted 8 lines

config CMD_BDI
bool "bdinfo"
+ default y
help
Print board info

This change enables CMD_BDI for all the boards.

Please notice the following boards do not want to compile this command.

./include/configs/dbau1x00.h:#undef CONFIG_CMD_BDI

common/Kconfig config CMD_USB · line 209

Quoted 7 lines

common/Kconfig +1 -0

@@ -193,6 +204,7 @@ config CMD_USB
 
 config CMD_FPGA
        bool "fpga"
+       default y
        help
          FPGA support.

Moreover, I doubt some of default commands in <config_cmd_default.h> (I have used only some of commands in <config_cmd_default.h>)

Quoted 3 lines

For example, it seems weird to enable CONFIG_CMD_FPGA by default.

I do not think most of boards have FPGA.

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

Quoted 2 lines

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Quoted 4 lines

I will highly appreciate input on both topics from others so we'll do some progress here and will make sure all parties are happy.

-Alexey

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

Quoted 4 lines

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Quoted 2 lines

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

Quoted 8 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

Quoted 16 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

Quoted 8 lines

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

How about this:

1. Support an 'include' option in defconfig to include another file. This could take the form of CONFIG_DEFCONFIG_INCLUDES (comma-separated list of filenames). Don't allow nested includes - this CONFIG provides a complete list of includes.
2. When you use menuconfig to edit the config, it ignores the include and just writes out everything. Then it runs a simple script which parses the include files, and adjusts the file so that things in the includes are not repeated in the defconfig.

I think this scheme would be good enough, but can probably be improved. At least it would be better than what we have.

Or we could instead define particular includes for different purposes:

- Arch
- SOC
- SOC Vendor
- Board vendor
- Board family

We could then require that standard filenames are used, and search for the correct file based on the SOC/board/vendor setting, etc.

As an example, for trimslice, we could search for arm.h, tegra.h, nvidia.h, compulab.h, some_family_name.h.

This is less flexible though.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 6 lines

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 9 lines · Simon Glass

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Unfortunately I cannot open this link - I see "Connection to 80.91.229.5 failed". Do you mind to provide a link for the same message in
http://lists.denx.de ?

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

Indeed and that stops me from starting this work as well. So my point is:
1) anybody may do updates to Kconfig like add more U-Boot commands,
some settings (CONFIG_SYS_xxx)
2) board maintainers are responsible for updates in defconfigs and
corresponding headers in "include/configs/"
3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

That makes sense but why don't we start implementation of changes in good boards we know already converted to "generic"? There're even entire arches that switched to "generic boards".

Quoted 47 lines

Quoted 16 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

Quoted 8 lines

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

How about this:

1. Support an 'include' option in defconfig to include another file. This could take the form of CONFIG_DEFCONFIG_INCLUDES (comma-separated list of filenames). Don't allow nested includes - this CONFIG provides a complete list of includes.
2. When you use menuconfig to edit the config, it ignores the include and just writes out everything. Then it runs a simple script which parses the include files, and adjusts the file so that things in the includes are not repeated in the defconfig.

I think this scheme would be good enough, but can probably be improved. At least it would be better than what we have.

Or we could instead define particular includes for different purposes:

- Arch
- SOC
- SOC Vendor
- Board vendor
- Board family

Quoted 7 lines

We could then require that standard filenames are used, and search for the correct file based on the SOC/board/vendor setting, etc.

As an example, for trimslice, we could search for arm.h, tegra.h, nvidia.h, compulab.h, some_family_name.h.

This is less flexible though.

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs.

This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 7 lines

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Right but if we expect to switch to Kconfig solely for commands selection we may not care much about contents of "config_cmd_default.h" assuming it will go away sometime soon.

Probably we may just focus on:
1. Add all existing commands in Kconfig
2. Select very few of them to be globally default

(1) is pretty simple and anybody may do it if time permits
(2) requires wide discussion

But what's really nice with Kconfig is its "savedefconfig". So we may not set any commands as globally default and let every architecture, board or defconfig to select really required options.

Then once any option is marked as global (or even arch or board) default in a matter of simple script that does "make XXX_defconfig && make savedefconfig && mv defconfig configs/XXX_defconfig" all relevant defconfigs will be correctly updated (default options will be stripped out).

Hi,

Quoted 113 lines · Alexey Brodkin

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 9 lines · Simon Glass

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Unfortunately I cannot open this link - I see "Connection to 80.91.229.5 failed". Do you mind to provide a link for the same message in
http://lists.denx.de ?

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

Indeed and that stops me from starting this work as well. So my point is:
1) anybody may do updates to Kconfig like add more U-Boot commands,
some settings (CONFIG_SYS_xxx)
2) board maintainers are responsible for updates in defconfigs and
corresponding headers in "include/configs/"
3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

That makes sense but why don't we start implementation of changes in good boards we know already converted to "generic"? There're even entire arches that switched to "generic boards".

Quoted 47 lines

Quoted 16 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

Quoted 8 lines

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

How about this:

1. Support an 'include' option in defconfig to include another file. This could take the form of CONFIG_DEFCONFIG_INCLUDES (comma-separated list of filenames). Don't allow nested includes - this CONFIG provides a complete list of includes.
2. When you use menuconfig to edit the config, it ignores the include and just writes out everything. Then it runs a simple script which parses the include files, and adjusts the file so that things in the includes are not repeated in the defconfig.

I think this scheme would be good enough, but can probably be improved. At least it would be better than what we have.

Or we could instead define particular includes for different purposes:

- Arch
- SOC
- SOC Vendor
- Board vendor
- Board family

Quoted 7 lines

We could then require that standard filenames are used, and search for the correct file based on the SOC/board/vendor setting, etc.

As an example, for trimslice, we could search for arm.h, tegra.h, nvidia.h, compulab.h, some_family_name.h.

This is less flexible though.

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs.

This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

Quoted 4 lines

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

I started with this approach and Masahiro was not very keen on it. I'm OK with it, particularly as it is already supported, but I wonder whether we can do better.

I notice that some kernel distributions have a script which pulls out common kernel configs in a separate file (e.g. for ARM, or for Tegra) for checking into source control, then combine them again for the kernel. This suggests that others have this problem too. It does seem like a convenient feature to be able to have some sort of hierarchy of config.

Re messed-up configs, what will mess up? We can make it part of writing the config, perhaps.

Quoted 27 lines

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 7 lines

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Right but if we expect to switch to Kconfig solely for commands selection we may not care much about contents of "config_cmd_default.h" assuming it will go away sometime soon.

Probably we may just focus on:
1. Add all existing commands in Kconfig
2. Select very few of them to be globally default

(1) is pretty simple and anybody may do it if time permits
(2) requires wide discussion

But what's really nice with Kconfig is its "savedefconfig". So we may not set any commands as globally default and let every architecture, board or defconfig to select really required options.

Quoted 5 lines

Then once any option is marked as global (or even arch or board) default in a matter of simple script that does "make XXX_defconfig && make savedefconfig && mv defconfig configs/XXX_defconfig" all relevant defconfigs will be correctly updated (default options will be stripped out).

Yes, it would be great to get all command configs into Kconfig.

I wonder if we need a script which automates the conversion? The header file includes in the include/configs/... files makes this non-trivial. But if we had a script which could take a CONFIG as a parameter, remove it from all config headers, and add it to relevant defconfigs, it would be very useful.

Hi

2015-01-15 23:46 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <[email protected]>:

Quoted 116 lines

Hi,

Quoted 113 lines · Alexey Brodkin

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 9 lines · Simon Glass

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Unfortunately I cannot open this link - I see "Connection to 80.91.229.5 failed". Do you mind to provide a link for the same message in
http://lists.denx.de ?

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

Indeed and that stops me from starting this work as well. So my point is:
1) anybody may do updates to Kconfig like add more U-Boot commands,
some settings (CONFIG_SYS_xxx)
2) board maintainers are responsible for updates in defconfigs and
corresponding headers in "include/configs/"
3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

That makes sense but why don't we start implementation of changes in good boards we know already converted to "generic"? There're even entire arches that switched to "generic boards".

Quoted 47 lines

Quoted 16 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

Quoted 8 lines

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

How about this:

1. Support an 'include' option in defconfig to include another file. This could take the form of CONFIG_DEFCONFIG_INCLUDES (comma-separated list of filenames). Don't allow nested includes - this CONFIG provides a complete list of includes.
2. When you use menuconfig to edit the config, it ignores the include and just writes out everything. Then it runs a simple script which parses the include files, and adjusts the file so that things in the includes are not repeated in the defconfig.

I think this scheme would be good enough, but can probably be improved. At least it would be better than what we have.

Or we could instead define particular includes for different purposes:

- Arch
- SOC
- SOC Vendor
- Board vendor
- Board family

Quoted 7 lines

We could then require that standard filenames are used, and search for the correct file based on the SOC/board/vendor setting, etc.

As an example, for trimslice, we could search for arm.h, tegra.h, nvidia.h, compulab.h, some_family_name.h.

This is less flexible though.

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs.

This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

I started with this approach and Masahiro was not very keen on it. I'm OK with it, particularly as it is already supported, but I wonder whether we can do better.

Honestly, I do not like baseline options in board-Kconfig very much. The advantage is that it works without any change.

What I suggested before was to use scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh.

For example, put the SoC baseline options into tegra30_defconfig. Put the difference from that into tegra30_(board).config For example,

    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_seaboard.config
    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_trimslice.config

The disadvantage is that we would have to input more for the configuration and has some impact on other projects such as BuildRoot...

Another option is "multi-image".
Actually barebox adopted this solution to solve the increasing defconfig problem.

In barebox, for example, all the Tegra boards share a single defconfig, "tegra_v7_defconfig"

tegra_v7_defconfig creates images for beaver, jetson, colibri, ac100, ...

It takes advantage of Device Tree configuration and garbage collection. So, it generates multipule images without increasing memory foot-print.

Quoted 10 lines

I notice that some kernel distributions have a script which pulls out common kernel configs in a separate file (e.g. for ARM, or for Tegra) for checking into source control, then combine them again for the kernel. This suggests that others have this problem too. It does seem like a convenient feature to be able to have some sort of hierarchy of config.

Quoted 2 lines

Re messed-up configs, what will mess up? We can make it part of writing the config, perhaps.

The hierarchical config strategy makes "savedefconfig" difficult , I think.

Quoted 35 lines

Quoted 29 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Right but if we expect to switch to Kconfig solely for commands selection we may not care much about contents of "config_cmd_default.h" assuming it will go away sometime soon.

Probably we may just focus on:
1. Add all existing commands in Kconfig
2. Select very few of them to be globally default

(1) is pretty simple and anybody may do it if time permits
(2) requires wide discussion

But what's really nice with Kconfig is its "savedefconfig". So we may not set any commands as globally default and let every architecture, board or defconfig to select really required options.

Quoted 5 lines

Then once any option is marked as global (or even arch or board) default in a matter of simple script that does "make XXX_defconfig && make savedefconfig && mv defconfig configs/XXX_defconfig" all relevant defconfigs will be correctly updated (default options will be stripped out).

Quoted 7 lines

Yes, it would be great to get all command configs into Kconfig.

I wonder if we need a script which automates the conversion? The header file includes in the include/configs/... files makes this non-trivial. But if we had a script which could take a CONFIG as a parameter, remove it from all config headers, and add it to relevant defconfigs, it would be very useful.

I have a Python script that moves each CONFIG from header files to defconfig files.

I wrote it for my local use, so it might not be very clean.

If necessary, I can share it on ML.

Hi Masahiro,

Quoted 15 lines

Honestly, I do not like baseline options in board-Kconfig very much. The advantage is that it works without any change.

What I suggested before was to use scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh.

For example, put the SoC baseline options into tegra30_defconfig. Put the difference from that into tegra30_(board).config For example,

    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_seaboard.config
    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_trimslice.config

The disadvantage is that we would have to input more for the configuration and has some impact on other projects such as BuildRoot...

Quoted 9 lines

In barebox, for example, all the Tegra boards share a single defconfig, "tegra_v7_defconfig"

tegra_v7_defconfig creates images for beaver, jetson, colibri, ac100, ...

It takes advantage of Device Tree configuration and garbage collection. So, it generates multipule images without increasing memory foot-print.

I've been keen on that approach and have taken some steps for Tegra and Exynos. Exynos is actually not to far away, but Tegra 124 pinmux approach makes this hard.

Still I think this is the best solution - fewer boards to build also.

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 16 lines · Simon Glass

Hi Masahiro,

Quoted 15 lines

Honestly, I do not like baseline options in board-Kconfig very much. The advantage is that it works without any change.

What I suggested before was to use scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh.

For example, put the SoC baseline options into tegra30_defconfig. Put the difference from that into tegra30_(board).config For example,

    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_seaboard.config
    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_trimslice.config

The disadvantage is that we would have to input more for the configuration and has some impact on other projects such as BuildRoot...

Are you saying this approach really works?
I mean "make tegra30_defconfig tegra30_seaboard.config".

Anyway I don't really like to change behavior of things people used to use. It will produce a lot of confusion instead of convenience of well-known tool.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 9 lines

In barebox, for example, all the Tegra boards share a single defconfig, "tegra_v7_defconfig"

tegra_v7_defconfig creates images for beaver, jetson, colibri, ac100, ...

It takes advantage of Device Tree configuration and garbage collection. So, it generates multipule images without increasing memory foot-print.

Quoted 5 lines

I've been keen on that approach and have taken some steps for Tegra and Exynos. Exynos is actually not to far away, but Tegra 124 pinmux approach makes this hard.

Still I think this is the best solution - fewer boards to build also.

I do like this approach as well.
But there will be pitfalls.

Imagine there's say a driver for Ethernet controller which is used on MyBoard1 and MyBoard2. One board may use DMA/Phylib/caches and another doesn't use either of options I listed.

This means we need to build 2 instances of the driver, because options that I listed could not be built as extensions to some basic driver. You may think of it like compilation with different flags.

Another good example which will inevitable hit me with proposed solution
- some of our boards have either replaceable CPU tile or FPGA instead of real silicon CPU. It means that the same one board (read peripherals) could be driven by different CPUs. I mean not only variations of one core (in this case we may build for some base-line configuration of CPU so it will run on all more advanced cores) but it could be binary-incompatible CPUs. It means we'll need to re-build everything (sic!) for each board.

Still I'm not saying anything against proposed "multibuild" approach - I do like it, but we need to understand if it may satisfy all of our requirements. Or what will be overheads if we decide to go this way. Probably in my case with binary-incompatible cores the simplest solution will be 2 defconfigs which only differ in CPU version selection.

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 11 lines · Simon Glass

Hi Masahiro,

Quoted 10 lines

Honestly, I do not like baseline options in board-Kconfig very much. The advantage is that it works without any change.

What I suggested before was to use scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh.

For example, put the SoC baseline options into tegra30_defconfig. Put the difference from that into tegra30_(board).config For example,

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 5 lines

    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_seaboard.config
    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_trimslice.config

The disadvantage is that we would have to input more for the configuration and has some impact on other projects such as BuildRoot...

Are you saying this approach really works?
I mean "make tegra30_defconfig tegra30_seaboard.config".

Anyway I don't really like to change behavior of things people used to use. It will produce a lot of confusion instead of convenience of well-known tool.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 9 lines

In barebox, for example, all the Tegra boards share a single defconfig, "tegra_v7_defconfig"

tegra_v7_defconfig creates images for beaver, jetson, colibri, ac100, ...

It takes advantage of Device Tree configuration and garbage collection. So, it generates multipule images without increasing memory foot-print.

Quoted 5 lines

I've been keen on that approach and have taken some steps for Tegra and Exynos. Exynos is actually not to far away, but Tegra 124 pinmux approach makes this hard.

Still I think this is the best solution - fewer boards to build also.

I do like this approach as well.
But there will be pitfalls.

Imagine there's say a driver for Ethernet controller which is used on MyBoard1 and MyBoard2. One board may use DMA/Phylib/caches and another doesn't use either of options I listed.

This means we need to build 2 instances of the driver, because options that I listed could not be built as extensions to some basic driver. You may think of it like compilation with different flags.

Another good example which will inevitable hit me with proposed solution
- some of our boards have either replaceable CPU tile or FPGA instead of real silicon CPU. It means that the same one board (read peripherals) could be driven by different CPUs. I mean not only variations of one core (in this case we may build for some base-line configuration of CPU so it will run on all more advanced cores) but it could be binary-incompatible CPUs. It means we'll need to re-build everything (sic!) for each board.

Still I'm not saying anything against proposed "multibuild" approach - I do like it, but we need to understand if it may satisfy all of our requirements. Or what will be overheads if we decide to go this way. Probably in my case with binary-incompatible cores the simplest solution will be 2 defconfigs which only differ in CPU version selection.

Hi Masahiro,

Quoted 138 lines · Masahiro YAMADA

Hi

2015-01-15 23:46 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass <[email protected]>:

Quoted 116 lines

Hi,

Quoted 113 lines · Alexey Brodkin

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 9 lines · Simon Glass

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Unfortunately I cannot open this link - I see "Connection to 80.91.229.5 failed". Do you mind to provide a link for the same message in
http://lists.denx.de ?

Quoted 2 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

Indeed and that stops me from starting this work as well. So my point is:
1) anybody may do updates to Kconfig like add more U-Boot commands,
some settings (CONFIG_SYS_xxx)
2) board maintainers are responsible for updates in defconfigs and
corresponding headers in "include/configs/"
3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

That makes sense but why don't we start implementation of changes in good boards we know already converted to "generic"? There're even entire arches that switched to "generic boards".

Quoted 47 lines

Quoted 16 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

Quoted 8 lines

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

How about this:

1. Support an 'include' option in defconfig to include another file. This could take the form of CONFIG_DEFCONFIG_INCLUDES (comma-separated list of filenames). Don't allow nested includes - this CONFIG provides a complete list of includes.
2. When you use menuconfig to edit the config, it ignores the include and just writes out everything. Then it runs a simple script which parses the include files, and adjusts the file so that things in the includes are not repeated in the defconfig.

I think this scheme would be good enough, but can probably be improved. At least it would be better than what we have.

Or we could instead define particular includes for different purposes:

- Arch
- SOC
- SOC Vendor
- Board vendor
- Board family

Quoted 7 lines

We could then require that standard filenames are used, and search for the correct file based on the SOC/board/vendor setting, etc.

As an example, for trimslice, we could search for arm.h, tegra.h, nvidia.h, compulab.h, some_family_name.h.

This is less flexible though.

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs.

This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

I started with this approach and Masahiro was not very keen on it. I'm OK with it, particularly as it is already supported, but I wonder whether we can do better.

Honestly, I do not like baseline options in board-Kconfig very much. The advantage is that it works without any change.

What I suggested before was to use scripts/kconfig/merge_config.sh.

For example, put the SoC baseline options into tegra30_defconfig. Put the difference from that into tegra30_(board).config For example,

Quoted 5 lines

    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_seaboard.config
    make  tegra30_defconfig  tegra30_trimslice.config

The disadvantage is that we would have to input more for the configuration and has some impact on other projects such as BuildRoot...

Is there any way that tegra30_seaboard could include tegra30 automatically?

Quoted 7 lines

Another option is "multi-image".
Actually barebox adopted this solution to solve the increasing defconfig problem.

Quoted 8 lines

In barebox, for example, all the Tegra boards share a single defconfig, "tegra_v7_defconfig"

tegra_v7_defconfig creates images for beaver, jetson, colibri, ac100, ...

It takes advantage of Device Tree configuration and garbage collection. So, it generates multipule images without increasing memory foot-print.

I've been keen on that approach and have taken some steps for Tegra and Exynos. Exynos is actually not to far away, but Tegra 124 pinmux approach makes this hard.

Still I think this is the best solution - fewer boards to build also.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 10 lines

I notice that some kernel distributions have a script which pulls out common kernel configs in a separate file (e.g. for ARM, or for Tegra) for checking into source control, then combine them again for the kernel. This suggests that others have this problem too. It does seem like a convenient feature to be able to have some sort of hierarchy of config.

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 2 lines

Re messed-up configs, what will mess up? We can make it part of writing the config, perhaps.

The hierarchical config strategy makes "savedefconfig" difficult , I think.

I never said it would be easy. Kconfig wasn't easy.

Quoted 46 lines

Quoted 35 lines

Quoted 29 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Right but if we expect to switch to Kconfig solely for commands selection we may not care much about contents of "config_cmd_default.h" assuming it will go away sometime soon.

Probably we may just focus on:
1. Add all existing commands in Kconfig
2. Select very few of them to be globally default

(1) is pretty simple and anybody may do it if time permits
(2) requires wide discussion

But what's really nice with Kconfig is its "savedefconfig". So we may not set any commands as globally default and let every architecture, board or defconfig to select really required options.

Quoted 5 lines

Then once any option is marked as global (or even arch or board) default in a matter of simple script that does "make XXX_defconfig && make savedefconfig && mv defconfig configs/XXX_defconfig" all relevant defconfigs will be correctly updated (default options will be stripped out).

Quoted 7 lines

Yes, it would be great to get all command configs into Kconfig.

I wonder if we need a script which automates the conversion? The header file includes in the include/configs/... files makes this non-trivial. But if we had a script which could take a CONFIG as a parameter, remove it from all config headers, and add it to relevant defconfigs, it would be very useful.

I have a Python script that moves each CONFIG from header files to defconfig files.

Quoted 4 lines

I wrote it for my local use, so it might not be very clean.

If necessary, I can share it on ML.

Yes please!

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 11 lines

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs.

This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

I started with this approach and Masahiro was not very keen on it. I'm OK with it, particularly as it is already supported, but I wonder whether we can do better.

Hi Simon, Alexey,

Quoted 11 lines · On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:44:16 -0700 Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 11 lines

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs.

This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

I started with this approach and Masahiro was not very keen on it. I'm OK with it, particularly as it is already supported, but I wonder whether we can do better.

Shall we go with this way?

It is true that I was not very keen on it at first, but after discussion with you, I understand that this is the best solution we can do now in terms of code maintainability.

Hi Simon, Masahiro-san,

Quoted 9 lines · Simon Glass

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Probably I'm missing details of our Kconfig migration plan if one exists. Then I'd like to get a reference to the plan so I'm not attempting to do things that are already scheduled and could be even in a process of implementation.
Otherwise if there's no current plan for Kconfig migration we may start discussion on how to deal with "commands" in particular.

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 4 lines

I proposed the following way, but no big conversion movement has happened yet.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/199965/focus=200089

If you have an idea, please propose it.

Unfortunately I cannot open this link - I see "Connection to 80.91.229.5 failed". Do you mind to provide a link for the same message in
http://lists.denx.de ?

Quoted 3 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Kconfig conversion is a too big task to be done by a single indivisual. Any suggestion, any form of contribution is very appreciated.

Indeed and that stops me from starting this work as well. So my point is:
1) anybody may do updates to Kconfig like add more U-Boot commands,
some settings (CONFIG_SYS_xxx)

2) board maintainers are responsible for updates in defconfigs and
corresponding headers in "include/configs/"

3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

That makes sense but why don't we start implementation of changes in good boards we know already converted to "generic"? There're even entire arches that switched to "generic boards".

Quoted 50 lines

Quoted 16 lines

Quoted 5 lines

The point is commands are low-hanging fruits in terms of Kconfig migration - there're no extra options and tweaks, once all commands are added in Kconfig (essentially with dependencies etc) we may clean all board headers. The only real problem here is amount of work - lots of headers/defconfigs to patch. But still this is doable.

I realized one problem when I was doing this task
for my boards in commit 25e274e20208.

The defconfigs of my boards are almost the same:
(configs/ph1_ld4_defconfig, configs/ph1_pro4_defconfig, configs/ph1_sld8_defconfig)

What is inconvenient as for defconfig is that it does not support "include" directive like C headers.

Quoted 8 lines

People generally like to add CONFIG_CMD_* to a common header file such as include/configs/tegra-common.h

On the other hand, on defconfig, we must touch each defconfig of the board family.

I have not been able to decide right direction to solve this issue.

I think we need to discuss about how to live with lots of defconfigs.

How about this:

1. Support an 'include' option in defconfig to include another file. This could take the form of CONFIG_DEFCONFIG_INCLUDES (comma-separated list of filenames). Don't allow nested includes - this CONFIG provides a complete list of includes.
2. When you use menuconfig to edit the config, it ignores the include and just writes out everything. Then it runs a simple script which parses the include files, and adjusts the file so that things in the includes are not repeated in the defconfig.

I think this scheme would be good enough, but can probably be improved. At least it would be better than what we have.

Or we could instead define particular includes for different purposes:

- Arch
- SOC
- SOC Vendor
- Board vendor
- Board family

We could then require that standard filenames are used, and search for the correct file based on the SOC/board/vendor setting, etc.

Quoted 4 lines

As an example, for trimslice, we could search for arm.h, tegra.h, nvidia.h, compulab.h, some_family_name.h.

This is less flexible though.

Frankly I don't like this approach with post-processing steps. It will inevitably end-up with messed up configs.

Why don't we just use default values in Kconfig for ARCH/SOC/Board? It's pretty obvious that 1 board may have N flavors but then have a baseline options selected in "board/vendor/board_name/Kconfig" and only put options that differ between boards in your defconfigs. This way "savedefconfig" will automatically strip down all extra lines for a particular board.

This is how things work in Linux kernel and Buildroot Kconfig-based build systems. Probably I'm missing something here because U-Boot differs from mentioned projects in some aspects - if so please correct me.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 6 lines

That's a separate topic. I do agree that CMD_FPGA makes not much sense for most of boards, as well as some others.

And I think during migration process of commands to Kconfig it's a good time to reconsider default commands.

Agree.
We should reconsider the default.
In my opition, most of the ones in config_cmd_default.h are not default commands.

Right but if we expect to switch to Kconfig solely for commands selection we may not care much about contents of "config_cmd_default.h" assuming it will go away sometime soon.

Probably we may just focus on:
1. Add all existing commands in Kconfig
2. Select very few of them to be globally default

(1) is pretty simple and anybody may do it if time permits
(2) requires wide discussion

But what's really nice with Kconfig is its "savedefconfig". So we may not set any commands as globally default and let every architecture, board or defconfig to select really required options.

Then once any option is marked as global (or even arch or board) default in a matter of simple script that does "make XXX_defconfig && make savedefconfig && mv defconfig configs/XXX_defconfig" all relevant defconfigs will be correctly updated (default options will be stripped out).

-Alexey
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot at lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Weird. I can access the link.

The subject is
[RFC] How to move lots of CONFIGs from header files to Kconfig

Another URL is
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-October/193117.html

work as well.

Quoted 3 lines

So my point is:
1) anybody may do updates to Kconfig like add more U-Boot commands,
some settings (CONFIG_SYS_xxx)

Yes, U-Boot is an open source project. Anybody can contribute and it is very appreciated.

Quoted 2 lines

2) board maintainers are responsible for updates in defconfigs and
corresponding headers in "include/configs/"

Yes. I expect this, but some board maintainers might not like to do it for some reason.
( too busy, no interest , etc.)

At some point, we need to convert globally, I think.

Quoted 2 lines

3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Yes, good idea.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 7 lines

I personally keep away from any global changes until non-generic boards are dumped.

As Tom said in the following mail,
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-January/201032.html
we are going to remove lots of boards.

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 1 line

Quoted 1 line

I do not want to make extra efforts on non-generic boards.

That makes sense but why don't we start implementation of changes in good boards we know already converted to "generic"? There're even entire arches that switched to "generic boards".

Yes, we can start with well-maintained boards.

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 2 lines

3) that would be helpful if at (1) board maintainers are notified via
direct emails on the change that has been done

Yes, good idea.

That's important because not everybody follows mailing list closely especially if their development focus is temporary switched to other projects.

Now with switch to Kconfig it's possible to select commands via menuconfig or defconfigs.

Moreover some commands are enabled by default in both "config_cmd_default.h" as a legacy way and in "common/Kconfig".

And on attempt to build U-Boot following warnings are printed for definitions made in both:
--->---
In file included from include/configs/arcangel4.h:45:0,
from include/config.h:4,
from include/common.h:18,
from examples/standalone/stubs.c:1:
include/config_cmd_default.h:20:0: warning: "CONFIG_CMD_BDI" redefined [enabled by default]
#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI /* bdinfo */
^
In file included from ././include/linux/kconfig.h:4:0,

                 from <command-line>:0:

include/generated/autoconf.h:10:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI 1
^
--->---

An obvious fix is to wrap all definitions in "config_cmd_default.h" since we still have to keep it util we're done with complete switch to Kconfig.

Signed-off-by Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>

Cc Tom Rini <[email protected]>

---
 include/config_cmd_default.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)

include/config_cmd_default.h +37 -0

index 73c9544..b33f21b 100644
@@ -16,28 +16,70 @@
  * hardware, not fully tested, etc.).
  */
 
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
 #define CONFIG_CMD_BDI		/* bdinfo			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTD
 #define CONFIG_CMD_BOOTD	/* bootd			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_CONSOLE
 #define CONFIG_CMD_CONSOLE	/* coninfo			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_ECHO
 #define CONFIG_CMD_ECHO		/* echo arguments		*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_EDITENV
 #define CONFIG_CMD_EDITENV	/* editenv			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_FPGA
 #define CONFIG_CMD_FPGA		/* FPGA configuration Support	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_IMI
 #define CONFIG_CMD_IMI		/* iminfo			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_ITEST
 #define CONFIG_CMD_ITEST	/* Integer (and string) test	*/
+#endif
 #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NO_FLASH
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_FLASH
 #define CONFIG_CMD_FLASH	/* flinfo, erase, protect	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_IMLS
 #define CONFIG_CMD_IMLS		/* List all found images	*/
 #endif
+#endif /* CONFIG_SYS_NO_FLASH */
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_LOADB
 #define CONFIG_CMD_LOADB	/* loadb			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_LOADS
 #define CONFIG_CMD_LOADS	/* loads			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_MEMORY
 #define CONFIG_CMD_MEMORY	/* md mm nm mw cp cmp crc base loop */
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_MISC
 #define CONFIG_CMD_MISC		/* Misc functions like sleep etc*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NET
 #define CONFIG_CMD_NET		/* bootp, tftpboot, rarpboot	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NFS
 #define CONFIG_CMD_NFS		/* NFS support			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_RUN
 #define CONFIG_CMD_RUN		/* run command in env variable	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV
 #define CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV	/* saveenv			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_SETGETDCR

Hi all,

Quoted 100 lines · Alexey Brodkin

Now with switch to Kconfig it's possible to select commands via menuconfig or defconfigs.

Moreover some commands are enabled by default in both "config_cmd_default.h" as a legacy way and in "common/Kconfig".

And on attempt to build U-Boot following warnings are printed for definitions made in both:
--->---
In file included from include/configs/arcangel4.h:45:0,
from include/config.h:4,
from include/common.h:18,
from examples/standalone/stubs.c:1:
include/config_cmd_default.h:20:0: warning: "CONFIG_CMD_BDI" redefined [enabled by default]
#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI /* bdinfo */
^
In file included from ././include/linux/kconfig.h:4:0,

                 from <command-line>:0:

include/generated/autoconf.h:10:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI 1
^
--->---

An obvious fix is to wrap all definitions in "config_cmd_default.h" since we still have to keep it util we're done with complete switch to Kconfig.

Signed-off-by Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]>

Cc Tom Rini <[email protected]>

---
 include/config_cmd_default.h | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)

include/config_cmd_default.h +37 -0

index 73c9544..b33f21b 100644
@@ -16,28 +16,70 @@
  * hardware, not fully tested, etc.).
  */
 
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
 #define CONFIG_CMD_BDI		/* bdinfo			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_BOOTD
 #define CONFIG_CMD_BOOTD	/* bootd			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_CONSOLE
 #define CONFIG_CMD_CONSOLE	/* coninfo			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_ECHO
 #define CONFIG_CMD_ECHO		/* echo arguments		*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_EDITENV
 #define CONFIG_CMD_EDITENV	/* editenv			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_FPGA
 #define CONFIG_CMD_FPGA		/* FPGA configuration Support	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_IMI
 #define CONFIG_CMD_IMI		/* iminfo			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_ITEST
 #define CONFIG_CMD_ITEST	/* Integer (and string) test	*/
+#endif
 #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NO_FLASH
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_FLASH
 #define CONFIG_CMD_FLASH	/* flinfo, erase, protect	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_IMLS
 #define CONFIG_CMD_IMLS		/* List all found images	*/
 #endif
+#endif /* CONFIG_SYS_NO_FLASH */
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_LOADB
 #define CONFIG_CMD_LOADB	/* loadb			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_LOADS
 #define CONFIG_CMD_LOADS	/* loads			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_MEMORY
 #define CONFIG_CMD_MEMORY	/* md mm nm mw cp cmp crc base loop */
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_MISC
 #define CONFIG_CMD_MISC		/* Misc functions like sleep etc*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NET
 #define CONFIG_CMD_NET		/* bootp, tftpboot, rarpboot	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NFS
 #define CONFIG_CMD_NFS		/* NFS support			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_RUN
 #define CONFIG_CMD_RUN		/* run command in env variable	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV
 #define CONFIG_CMD_SAVEENV	/* saveenv			*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_SETGETDCR

include/config_cmd_default.h line 85

Quoted 10 lines

include/config_cmd_default.h +5 -0

 #define CONFIG_CMD_SETGETDCR	/* DCR support on 4xx		*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_SOURCE
 #define CONFIG_CMD_SOURCE	/* "source" command support	*/
+#endif
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_XIMG
 #define CONFIG_CMD_XIMG		/* Load part of Multi Image	*/
+#endif
 
 #endif	/* _CONFIG_CMD_DEFAULT_H */

Looks like the first patch from this series is not yet ready for a prime-time (look at discussion here
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/425106/) I still think this particular patch makes sense because users may select command via Kconfig now and once one of the commands listed in "config_cmd_default.h" is selected inevitably warnings will appear in build console.

So if there're no comment and objections I'll re-send this patch separately.

-Alexey

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 21:21:20 +0000
Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]> wrote:
I think this change is harmless, but

#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI 1

is simpler than

#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#endif

Maybe?

Hi Masahiro-san,

Quoted 6 lines · Masahiro Yamada

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 21:21:20 +0000
Alexey Brodkin <[email protected]> wrote:
I think this change is harmless, but

#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI 1

Quoted 8 lines

is simpler than

#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#define CONFIG_CMD_BDI
#endif

Maybe?

I don't think so :)

Please look at Wolfgang's comment here
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-February/172494.html

--->8---
Please do not define values for logical variables [please check everywhere].
--->8---