Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SPL_..._SUPPORT to Kconfig
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 42 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 42 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [U-Boot] [PATCH 00/42] Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SPL_..._SUPPORT to Kconfig
Hello Simon,
Am 24.08.2016 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Glass:
Quoted 42 lines
This series moves all the CONFIG_SPL_..._SUPPORT options to
Kconfigand fixes up existing boards to continue to build.It also adds a few small but useful features to moveconfig.
There is existing work going on in this area, so some of these patches may be superseded. It has taken me a while to get this building cleanly. But I have run out of time so want to get this out.
As mentioned on a recent thread [1] there is some confusion about whether an option means enabling driver support or media support. Andrew's recent series seems like a good vehicle to tidy that up. But I hope this series will make it easier.
There are a few strange features of this conversion. The main difficulty is that some PowerPC boards do things like this in their board config file:
#ifdef CONFIG_TPL_BUILD #define CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT #define CONFIG_SPL_ENV_SUPPORT #else #define CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT #endifThis means that TPL reuses the SPL options. We can't support this in
Kconfigso I have added a small number ofCONFIG_TPL_xxx_SUPPORToptions to cope with this. This made the conversion more painful than it should have been.A related issue is boards using a common header file and setting options only for SPL:
#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD #define CONFIG_SPL_SERIAL_SUPPORT #endifThis is not noticed by moveconfig so we have to clean it up manually. Also there are a few incorrect things where
Kconfigoptions are set with #define:#ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD #define CONFIG_SPL_DM #endif
Quoted 8 lines
Finally, many defconfig files are not ordered correctly, resulting in larger patches than we might like. It would be great to have a solution for this, perhaps with buildman providing a warning. But it might slow down development.
The series is fully build-tested (for bisectability) and causes no failures for the boards that already pass. The following boards fail for me at present on mainline (which I have not yet looked at):
Thanks!
Hmm... may you want to check, if your patchserie does not break any existing board? I wrote a tbot testcase for this, see:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2016-June/258119.html
bye,
Heiko
Signature · 2 lines
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany