| Message ID | 20230205224118.233425-78-sjg@chromium.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 07754cb0aece3e8d37637d77185f685f1cdfb404 |
| Delegated to: | Tom Rini |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Kconfig: More cleanup of CONFIG options | expand |
On 2/5/23 23:39, Simon Glass wrote: > This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is > no SPL_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL defined in Kconfig Why do you touch the code? I can't see any problem being solved. Best regards Heinrich > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> > --- > > (no changes since v1) > > lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c > index eaf75a5803d..26df0da16c9 100644 > --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c > +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c > @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_load_pe(struct efi_loaded_image_obj *handle, > goto err; > } > > -#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL) > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL) > /* Measure an PE/COFF image */ > ret = tcg2_measure_pe_image(efi, efi_size, handle, loaded_image_info); > if (ret == EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION) {
Hi Heinrich, On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 16:41, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > On 2/5/23 23:39, Simon Glass wrote: > > This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is > > no SPL_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL defined in Kconfig > > Why do you touch the code? I can't see any problem being solved. CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is going away, so we need to migrate things that should not be using it. I understand that EFI is not used in SPL, so it is also redundant. Regards, Simon
On 2/7/23 05:02, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Heinrich, > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 16:41, Heinrich Schuchardt > <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/5/23 23:39, Simon Glass wrote: >>> This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is >>> no SPL_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL defined in Kconfig >> >> Why do you touch the code? I can't see any problem being solved. > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is going away, so we need to migrate things that > should not be using it. I understand that EFI is not used in SPL, so > it is also redundant. > Neither the cover letter of this series nor the commit message of this patch says that CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is going away. Both the cover letter and the commit message of the individual patches should clearly indicate this intention. Why do you want to eliminate CONFIG_IS_ENABLED()? What is going to replace it? Best regards Heinrich
Hi Heinrich, On Tue, 7 Feb 2023 at 01:40, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 2/7/23 05:02, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 16:41, Heinrich Schuchardt > > <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/5/23 23:39, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is > >>> no SPL_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL defined in Kconfig > >> > >> Why do you touch the code? I can't see any problem being solved. > > > > CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is going away, so we need to migrate things that > > should not be using it. I understand that EFI is not used in SPL, so > > it is also redundant. > > > > Neither the cover letter of this series nor the commit message of this > patch says that CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() is going away. > > Both the cover letter and the commit message of the individual patches > should clearly indicate this intention. > > Why do you want to eliminate CONFIG_IS_ENABLED()? What is going to > replace it? Please see the comments here: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/cover/20230206190550.1692420-1-sjg@chromium.org/ This work is happening in three different series: u-boot-dm/spla-working - ensures that Kconfig options mentioned in the source code actually exist in Kconfig u-boot-dm/splb-working - drops use of CONFIG_IS_ENABLED() where it is not necessary u-boot-dm/splc-working - adds SPL Kconfigs which are referred to in the source; converts to a split config Fundamentally it is about having CONFIG_FOO mean the same thing in all builds (U-Boot proper, SPL, etc.): FOO is enabled in this build. It means we can drop the SPL_TPL_ macro and also the use of CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(). This discussion has been going on for many years. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to achieve. What started off as 30 patches and turned into a lot... Regards, Simon
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c index eaf75a5803d..26df0da16c9 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_load_pe(struct efi_loaded_image_obj *handle, goto err; } -#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL) +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL) /* Measure an PE/COFF image */ ret = tcg2_measure_pe_image(efi, efi_size, handle, loaded_image_info); if (ret == EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION) {
This converts 1 usage of this option to the non-SPL form, since there is no SPL_EFI_TCG2_PROTOCOL defined in Kconfig Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> --- (no changes since v1) lib/efi_loader/efi_image_loader.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)