[U-Boot] [PATCH] Makefile: print warning if CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS is used

From: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Makefile: print warning if CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS is used
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:23:56 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170222162356.GT27120@bill-the-cat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAQM6=6N80N1PBP841gWSMP36OEJHbLSR3i5Db_w9zABDg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:53:05AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> 2017-02-22 8:16 GMT+09:00 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 03:24:53PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> >> The prompt of this option is marked "DEPRECATED" in capital letters,
> >> and its help clearly says:
> >>   This option was prepared for the smooth migration from the old
> >>   configuration to Kconfig. Since this option will be removed sometime,
> >>   new boards should not use this option.
> >>
> >> However, we have had almost no progress on this.  In fact, this
> >> option is often abused for fresh porting, and more and more new
> >> defconfigs with it are coming in (for example, SUNXI boards).
> >
> > That's not entirely true. We've added more defconfig, but with the
> > same set of options we've always had, and are shared by everyone
> > (CONS_INDEX, RGMII).
> >
> > So this patch, in effect, gives the signal that it's better to have a
> > proliferation of board-specific headers in include/configs, over using
> > SYS_EXTRA until most of the generic functions are merged?
> 
> No.
> 
> I am saying to add
> CONFIG_CONS_INDEX=2
> CONFIG_RGMII=y
> 
> instead of
> 
> CONFIG_SYS_EXTRA_OPTIONS=CONS_INDEX=2,RGMII"
> 
> 
> Why proliferation of board-specific headers?

The issue here is that we have a handful of options that need converting
still, and are not "easy".  For CONS_INDEX we need to find the right
generic location for this to be and migrate, and remove the few
instances of board-centric versions of the question.

I agree with the sentiment of the original patch but I want to see how
many of the current options can be knocked out easily.  WRT sunxi, I
posted moving two of them, and RGMII will happen as part of the general
move of all of the network drivers over.

SATAPWR and MACPWR will take a little more thinking on, to figure out.
Do these values exist within the normal device tree in some way already
for example?  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20170222/d4de4f27/attachment.sig>