Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> says:
When the SPL build-phase was first created it was designed to solve a
particular problem (the need to init SDRAM so that U-Boot proper could
be loaded). It has since expanded to become an important part of U-Boot,
with three phases now present: TPL, VPL and SPL
Due to this history, the term 'SPL' is used to mean both a particular
phase (the one before U-Boot proper) and all the non-proper phases.
This has become confusing.
For a similar reason CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is set to 'y' for all 'SPL'
phases, not just SPL. So code which can only be compiled for actual SPL,
for example, must use something like this:
#if defined(CONFIG_SPL_BUILD) && !defined(CONFIG_TPL_BUILD)
In Makefiles we have similar issues. SPL_ has been used as a variable
which expands to either SPL_ or nothing, to chose between options like
CONFIG_BLK and CONFIG_SPL_BLK. When TPL appeared, a new SPL_TPL variable
was created which expanded to 'SPL_', 'TPL_' or nothing. Later it was
updated to support 'VPL_' as well.
This series starts a change in terminology and usage to resolve the
above issues:
- The word 'xPL' is used instead of 'SPL' to mean a non-proper build
- A new CONFIG_XPL_BUILD define indicates that the current build is an
'xPL' build
- The existing CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is changed to mean SPL; it is not now
defined for TPL and VPL phases
- The existing SPL_ Makefile variable is renamed to SPL_
- The existing SPL_TPL Makefile variable is renamed to PHASE_
It should be noted that xpl_phase() can generally be used instead of
the above CONFIGs without a code-space or run-time penalty.
This series does not attempt to convert all of U-Boot to use this new
terminology but it makes a start. In particular, renaming spl.h and
common/spl seems like a bridge too far at this point.
The series is fully bisectable. It has also been checked to ensure there
are no code-size changes on any commit.
47e544f576