Re: [PATCH 7/8] binman_sym: guard with CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(BINMAN_SYMBOLS)

From: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
To: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc: "u-boot@lists.denx.de" <u-boot@lists.denx.de>,
	Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
	"tharvey@gateworks.com" <tharvey@gateworks.com>,
	"sbabic@denx.de" <sbabic@denx.de>,
	"festevam@gmail.com" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"trini@konsulko.com" <trini@konsulko.com>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] binman_sym: guard with CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(BINMAN_SYMBOLS)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 18:32:12 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a50afdbf-7a2d-0dec-d05c-1cc3e1282809@oss.nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <caeef0b5-e4cb-6024-3da9-fcd18f0aa1f3@gmail.com>

在 2022/6/11 0:47, Alper Nebi Yasak 写道:
> On 04/06/2022 14:50, Alper Nebi Yasak wrote:
>> On 03/06/2022 10:17, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
>>> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>>
>>> There is case that CONFIG_BINMAN is defined, but
>>> CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS is not defined. In that case, there will be
>>> build failure. So use CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS to guard the macros, and
>>> define CONFIG_SPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS in binman syms test.
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com> #imx8m[m,n,p]-venice
>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
>>> ---
>>>   include/binman_sym.h                        | 2 +-
>>>   tools/binman/test/Makefile                  | 2 +-
>>>   tools/binman/test/generated/autoconf.h      | 3 +++
>>>   tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms.c      | 2 +-
>>>   tools/binman/test/u_boot_binman_syms_size.c | 2 +-
>>>   5 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>   create mode 100644 tools/binman/test/generated/autoconf.h
>> Reviewed-by: Alper Nebi Yasak <alpernebiyasak@gmail.com>
> Looks like I have misunderstood things here a bit. CONFIG_BINMAN enables
> you to declare and use symbols. CONFIG_SPL/TPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS declares
> certain symbols ('u_boot_any'). The name is a bit misleading, as if it
> enables support for using symbols, and that confused me.

I am not sure, but I think CONFIG_SPL/TPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS are only for 
certain symbols saying u_boot_any.

Maybe Simon could comment?

>
> I have sent a patch [1] that fixes the build error mentioned here, which
> should be used instead of this patch. Please:
>
> - Rebase on top of that series [1]
> - Maybe drop config changes in 1/8 and 2/8 (they're now unnecessary)
> - Disable CONFIG_SPL/TPL/VPL_BINMAN_SYMBOLS for i.MX8M boards
> - Change the if statement to if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BINMAN)) in patch 5/8

This not work, BINMAN has been enabled for packing images, but we have 
not generated some i.MX binman symbols
for getting exact blob size. So I use binman symbols to get exact blob 
size in this patchset.

Thanks,
Peng.

> - Drop this patch 7/8
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> [1] spl: binman: Fix use of undeclared u_boot_any symbols
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fu-boot%2F20220610105806.27177-2-alpernebiyasak%40gmail.com%2F&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C4e7220d3cf724ca71a8e08da4b00e7fa%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637904764505471459%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=L9jmVdbr1RUL8gKZa8QWwxFnPhmxjW5bYZKwq8eDsH4%3D&amp;reserved=0