On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 09:42:23PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Monday 02 August 2021 13:21:58 Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Pali, > > > > On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 07:20, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > Header file version.h does not use anything from timestamp.h. Including of > > > timestamp.h has side effect which cause recompiling object file at every > > > make run because timestamp.h changes at every run. > > > > > > So remove timestamp.h from version.h and include timestamp.h in files > > > which needs it. > > > > > > This change reduce recompilation time of final U-Boot binary when U-Boot > > > source files were not changed as less source files needs to be recompiled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár > > > --- > > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/tpl.c | 4 ++++ > > > board/work-microwave/work_92105/work_92105_display.c | 1 + > > > cmd/version.c | 1 + > > > common/spl/spl.c | 4 ++++ > > > drivers/rtc/emul_rtc.c | 2 +- > > > include/version.h | 2 -- > > > 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass > > > > I assume we do actually want to regenerate the timestamp when U-Boot > > builds, even if nothing has changed. Is that right? > > This is current behavior and these my patches do not change it. Patches > just smartly moves the source of this timestamp (from macros to global > variable; so source files do not have to be recompiled when external > global variable changes -- as opposite of macros). > > > It could be > > confusing otherwise, as people cannot 'update' the banner without > > making a trivial change. > > IIRC linux kernel does not change this date 'banner' when nothing was > changed. So maybe it is, maybe it is not confusing... I think that if nothing changes the banner not changing is the right behavior. Reviewed-by: Tom Rini -- Tom