From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Aneesh V Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:03:02 +0530 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 1/4] Adapt config.mk for usage in spl/Makefile In-Reply-To: <20110708122504.89B2A15794A4@gemini.denx.de> References: <1309352967-5719-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com> <1309883182-12854-1-git-send-email-daniel.schwierzeck@googlemail.com> <1309883182-12854-2-git-send-email-daniel.schwierzeck@googlemail.com> <20110708090838.E92A9126F38F@gemini.denx.de> <20110708122504.89B2A15794A4@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4E17070E.50006@ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Wolfgang, On Friday 08 July 2011 05:55 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Daniel Schwierzeck, > > In message you wrote: >> >>>> +# Allow compiling of C and ASM code parts in different way. >>>> +# Serves also as a replacement for CONFIG_PRELOADER. >>>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_UBOOT_SPL_BUILD),) >>>> +CPPFLAGS += -DCONFIG_UBOOT_SPL_BUILD >>>> +endif >>> >>> I don't understand this comment. >> >> Currently we have CONFIG_PRELOADER (and maybe others?) to conditionally >> compile start.S and other code. The idea here is to consolidate those defines >> and to use a common name convention for SPL. My suggestion is something >> like CONFIG_UBOOT_SPL_BUILD. Are there better ideas? > > No, I agree with you. I just don't understand the comment above, i. e. > in which way does this "allow compiling of C and ASM code parts in > different way"? CPPFLAGS applies the same to .c and .S files, and I > don't see a how this setting would cause different options to be used > for C versus assembler code. Do you confirm on replacing all instances of CONFIG_PRELOADER with CONFIG_UBOOT_SPL_BUILD? best regards, Aneesh