|
|
|
|
#
|
Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers
Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big
blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the
source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very
difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem
is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of
slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different
indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address
information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare.
To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be
replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers
as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example,
in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be
replaced by a single line:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available
at [2].
Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only
a change to the textual representation of the license information,
but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch
applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they
were before.
Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new
"Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream
version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not
any actual changes to the content.
Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such
as:
- Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code?
- Are files without any license header a problem?
- Do we need license headers at all?
The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help
with these:
| Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org>
| Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400
| From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org>
| To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
| Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions
|
| Mr. Denk,
|
| Wolfgang Denk wrote:
| > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific
| > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files
| > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as
| > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the
| > U-Boot source tree?
|
| That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the
| various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected
| to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time
| she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she
| consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms.
|
| > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL
| > headers to them, or is this not needed?
|
| If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not
| identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in
| doing so.
|
| > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header
| > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It
| > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask
| > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses.
| > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op
| > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is
| > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in
| > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to
| > deal with such files?
|
| It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as
| implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights
| not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All
| Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no
| other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it.
|
| Warm regards,
| --Dan
|
| Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director
| Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC
| 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023
| (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax
| ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org
[1] http://spdx.org/
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
12 years ago
|
|
|
# (C) Copyright 2000-2013
|
|
|
|
|
# Wolfgang Denk, DENX Software Engineering, wd@denx.de.
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
Licenses: introduce SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers
Like many other projects, U-Boot has a tradition of including big
blocks of License headers in all files. This not only blows up the
source code with mostly redundant information, but also makes it very
difficult to generate License Clearing Reports. An additional problem
is that even the same lincenses are referred to by a number of
slightly varying text blocks (full, abbreviated, different
indentation, line wrapping and/or white space, with obsolete address
information, ...) which makes automatic processing a nightmare.
To make this easier, such license headers in the source files will be
replaced with a single line reference to Unique Lincense Identifiers
as defined by the Linux Foundation's SPDX project [1]. For example,
in a source file the full "GPL v2.0 or later" header text will be
replaced by a single line:
SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
We use the SPDX Unique Lincense Identifiers here; these are available
at [2].
Note: From the legal point of view, this patch is supposed to be only
a change to the textual representation of the license information,
but in no way any change to the actual license terms. With this patch
applied, all files will still be licensed under the same terms they
were before.
Note 2: The apparent difference between the old "COPYING" and the new
"Licenses/gpl-2.0.txt" only results from switching to the upstream
version of the license which is differently formatted; there are not
any actual changes to the content.
Note 3: There are some recurring questions about linense issues, such
as:
- Is a "All Rights Reserved" clause a problem in GPL code?
- Are files without any license header a problem?
- Do we need license headers at all?
The following excerpt from an e-mail by Daniel B. Ravicher should help
with these:
| Message-ID: <4ADF8CAA.5030808@softwarefreedom.org>
| Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:22 -0400
| From: "Daniel B. Ravicher" <ravicher@softwarefreedom.org>
| To: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
| Subject: Re: GPL and license cleanup questions
|
| Mr. Denk,
|
| Wolfgang Denk wrote:
| > - There are a number of files which do not include any specific
| > license information at all. Is it correct to assume that these files
| > are automatically covered by the "GPL v2 or later" clause as
| > specified by the COPYING file in the top level directory of the
| > U-Boot source tree?
|
| That is a very fact specific analysis and could be different across the
| various files. However, if the contributor could reasonably be expected
| to have known that the project was licensed GPLv2 or later at the time
| she made her contribution, then a reasonably implication is that she
| consented to her contributions being distributed under those terms.
|
| > - Do such files need any clean up, for example should we add GPL
| > headers to them, or is this not needed?
|
| If the project as a whole is licensed under clear terms, you need not
| identify those same terms in each file, although there is no harm in
| doing so.
|
| > - There are other files, which include both a GPL license header
| > _plus_ some copyright note with an "All Rights Reserved" clause. It
| > has been my understanding that this is a conflict, and me must ask
| > the copyright holders to remove such "All Rights Reserved" clauses.
| > But then, some people claim that "All Rights Reserved" is a no-op
| > nowadays. License checking tools (like OSLC) seem to indicate this is
| > a problem, but then we see quite a lot of "All rights reserved" in
| > BSD-licensed files in gcc and glibc. So what is the correct way to
| > deal with such files?
|
| It is not a conflict to grant a license and also reserve all rights, as
| implicit in that language is that you are reserving all "other" rights
| not granted in the license. Thus, a file with "Licensed under GPL, All
| Rights Reserved" would mean that it is licensed under the GPL, but no
| other rights are given to copy, modify or redistribute it.
|
| Warm regards,
| --Dan
|
| Daniel B. Ravicher, Legal Director
| Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and Moglen Ravicher LLC
| 1995 Broadway, 17th Fl., New York, NY 10023
| (212) 461-1902 direct (212) 580-0800 main (212) 580-0898 fax
| ravicher@softwarefreedom.org www.softwarefreedom.org
[1] http://spdx.org/
[2] http://spdx.org/licenses/
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
12 years ago
|
|
|
# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
#########################################################################
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# This file is included from ./Makefile and spl/Makefile.
|
|
|
|
|
# Clean the state to avoid the same flags added twice.
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# (Tegra needs different flags for SPL.
|
|
|
|
|
# That's the reason why this file must be included from spl/Makefile too.
|
|
|
|
|
# If we did not have Tegra SoCs, build system would be much simpler...)
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_RELFLAGS :=
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS :=
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_LDFLAGS :=
|
|
|
|
|
LDFLAGS :=
|
|
|
|
|
LDFLAGS_FINAL :=
|
|
|
|
|
OBJCOPYFLAGS :=
|
|
|
|
|
# clear VENDOR for tcsh
|
|
|
|
|
VENDOR :=
|
|
|
|
|
#########################################################################
|
|
|
|
|
|
kconfig: switch to Kconfig
This commit enables Kconfig.
Going forward, we use Kconfig for the board configuration.
mkconfig will never be used. Nor will include/config.mk be generated.
Kconfig must be adjusted for U-Boot because our situation is
a little more complicated than Linux Kernel.
We have to generate multiple boot images (Normal, SPL, TPL)
from one source tree.
Each image needs its own configuration input.
Usage:
Run "make <board>_defconfig" to do the board configuration.
It will create the .config file and additionally spl/.config, tpl/.config
if SPL, TPL is enabled, respectively.
You can use "make config", "make menuconfig" etc. to create
a new .config or modify the existing one.
Use "make spl/config", "make spl/menuconfig" etc. for spl/.config
and do likewise for tpl/.config file.
The generic syntax of configuration targets for SPL, TPL is:
<target_image>/<config_command>
Here, <target_image> is either 'spl' or 'tpl'
<config_command> is 'config', 'menuconfig', 'xconfig', etc.
When the configuration is done, run "make".
(Or "make <board>_defconfig all" will do the configuration and build
in one time.)
For futher information of how Kconfig works in U-Boot,
please read the comment block of scripts/multiconfig.py.
By the way, there is another item worth remarking here:
coexistence of Kconfig and board herder files.
Prior to Kconfig, we used C headers to define a set of configs.
We expect a very long term to migrate from C headers to Kconfig.
Two different infractructure must coexist in the interim.
In our former configuration scheme, include/autoconf.mk was generated
for use in makefiles.
It is still generated under include/, spl/include/, tpl/include/ directory
for the Normal, SPL, TPL image, respectively.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
11 years ago
|
|
|
ARCH := $(CONFIG_SYS_ARCH:"%"=%)
|
|
|
|
|
CPU := $(CONFIG_SYS_CPU:"%"=%)
|
kconfig: switch to single .config configuration
When Kconfig for U-boot was examined, one of the biggest issues was
how to support multiple images (Normal, SPL, TPL). There were
actually two options, "single .config" and "multiple .config".
After some discussions and thought experiments, I chose the latter,
i.e. to create ".config", "spl/.config", "tpl/.config" for Normal,
SPL, TPL, respectively.
It is true that the "multiple .config" strategy provided us the
maximum flexibility and helped to avoid duplicating CONFIGs among
Normal, SPL, TPL, but I have noticed some fatal problems:
[1] It is impossible to share CONFIG options across the images.
If you change the configuration of Main image, you often have to
adjust some SPL configurations correspondingly. Currently, we
cannot handle the dependencies between them. It means one of the
biggest advantages of Kconfig is lost.
[2] It is too painful to change both ".config" and "spl/.config".
Sunxi guys started to work around this problem by creating a new
configuration target. Commit cbdd9a9737cc (sunxi: kconfig: Add
%_felconfig rule to enable FEL build of sunxi platforms.) added
"make *_felconfig" to enable CONFIG_SPL_FEL on both images.
Changing the configuration of multiple images in one command is a
generic demand. The current implementation cannot propose any
good solution about this.
[3] Kconfig files are getting ugly and difficult to understand.
Commit b724bd7d6349 (dm: Kconfig: Move CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN to
Kconfig) has sprinkled "if !SPL_BUILD" over the Kconfig files.
[4] The build system got more complicated than it should be.
To adjust Linux-originated Kconfig to U-Boot, the helper script
"scripts/multiconfig.sh" was introduced. Writing a complicated
text processor is a shell script sometimes caused problems.
Now I believe the "single .config" will serve us better. With it,
all the problems above would go away. Instead, we will have to add
some CONFIG_SPL_* (and CONFIG_TPL_*) options such as CONFIG_SPL_DM,
but we will not have much. Anyway, this is what we do now in
scripts/Makefile.spl.
I admit my mistake with my apology and this commit switches to the
single .config configuration.
It is not so difficult to do that:
- Remove unnecessary processings from scripts/multiconfig.sh
This file will remain for a while to support the current defconfig
format. It will be removed after more cleanups are done.
- Adjust some makefiles and Kconfigs
- Add some entries to include/config_uncmd_spl.h and the new file
scripts/Makefile.uncmd_spl. Some CONFIG options that are not
supported on SPL must be disabled because one .config is shared
between SPL and U-Boot proper going forward. I know this is not
a beautiful solution and I think we can do better, but let's see
how much we will have to describe them.
- update doc/README.kconfig
More cleaning up patches will follow this.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
10 years ago
|
|
|
ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA
|
|
|
|
|
CPU := arm720t
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
kconfig: switch to Kconfig
This commit enables Kconfig.
Going forward, we use Kconfig for the board configuration.
mkconfig will never be used. Nor will include/config.mk be generated.
Kconfig must be adjusted for U-Boot because our situation is
a little more complicated than Linux Kernel.
We have to generate multiple boot images (Normal, SPL, TPL)
from one source tree.
Each image needs its own configuration input.
Usage:
Run "make <board>_defconfig" to do the board configuration.
It will create the .config file and additionally spl/.config, tpl/.config
if SPL, TPL is enabled, respectively.
You can use "make config", "make menuconfig" etc. to create
a new .config or modify the existing one.
Use "make spl/config", "make spl/menuconfig" etc. for spl/.config
and do likewise for tpl/.config file.
The generic syntax of configuration targets for SPL, TPL is:
<target_image>/<config_command>
Here, <target_image> is either 'spl' or 'tpl'
<config_command> is 'config', 'menuconfig', 'xconfig', etc.
When the configuration is done, run "make".
(Or "make <board>_defconfig all" will do the configuration and build
in one time.)
For futher information of how Kconfig works in U-Boot,
please read the comment block of scripts/multiconfig.py.
By the way, there is another item worth remarking here:
coexistence of Kconfig and board herder files.
Prior to Kconfig, we used C headers to define a set of configs.
We expect a very long term to migrate from C headers to Kconfig.
Two different infractructure must coexist in the interim.
In our former configuration scheme, include/autoconf.mk was generated
for use in makefiles.
It is still generated under include/, spl/include/, tpl/include/ directory
for the Normal, SPL, TPL image, respectively.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
Acked-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
11 years ago
|
|
|
BOARD := $(CONFIG_SYS_BOARD:"%"=%)
|
|
|
|
|
ifneq ($(CONFIG_SYS_VENDOR),)
|
|
|
|
|
VENDOR := $(CONFIG_SYS_VENDOR:"%"=%)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
ifneq ($(CONFIG_SYS_SOC),)
|
|
|
|
|
SOC := $(CONFIG_SYS_SOC:"%"=%)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Some architecture config.mk files need to know what CPUDIR is set to,
|
|
|
|
|
# so calculate CPUDIR before including ARCH/SOC/CPU config.mk files.
|
|
|
|
|
# Check if arch/$ARCH/cpu/$CPU exists, otherwise assume arch/$ARCH/cpu contains
|
|
|
|
|
# CPU-specific code.
|
|
|
|
|
CPUDIR=arch/$(ARCH)/cpu$(if $(CPU),/$(CPU),)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sinclude $(srctree)/arch/$(ARCH)/config.mk # include architecture dependend rules
|
|
|
|
|
sinclude $(srctree)/$(CPUDIR)/config.mk # include CPU specific rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef SOC
|
|
|
|
|
sinclude $(srctree)/$(CPUDIR)/$(SOC)/config.mk # include SoC specific rules
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
ifneq ($(BOARD),)
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef VENDOR
|
|
|
|
|
BOARDDIR = $(VENDOR)/$(BOARD)
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
BOARDDIR = $(BOARD)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef BOARD
|
|
|
|
|
sinclude $(srctree)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/config.mk # include board specific rules
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifdef FTRACE
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -finstrument-functions -DFTRACE
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Allow use of stdint.h if available
|
|
|
|
|
ifneq ($(USE_STDINT),)
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -DCONFIG_USE_STDINT
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#########################################################################
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RELFLAGS := $(PLATFORM_RELFLAGS)
|
Handle most LDSCRIPT setting centrally
Currently, some linker scripts are found by common code in config.mk.
Some are found using CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT, but the code for that is
sometimes in arch config.mk and sometimes in board config.mk. Some
are found using an arch-specific rule for looking in CPUDIR, etc.
Further, the powerpc config.mk rule relied on CONFIG_NAND_SPL
when it really wanted CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT -- which covered up the fact
that not all NAND_U_BOOT builds actually wanted CPUDIR/u-boot-nand.lds.
Replace all of this -- except for a handful of boards that are actually
selecting a linker script in a unique way -- with centralized ldscript
finding.
If board code specifies LDSCRIPT, that will be used.
Otherwise, if CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT is specified, that will be used.
If neither of these are specified, then the central config.mk will
check for the existence of the following, in order:
$(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds (only if CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT)
$(TOPDIR)/$(CPUDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds (only if CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT)
$(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds
$(TOPDIR)/$(CPUDIR)/u-boot.lds
Some boards (sc3, cm5200, munices) provided their own u-boot.lds that
were dead code, because they were overridden by a CPUDIR u-boot.lds under
the old powerpc rules. These boards' own u-boot.lds have bitrotted and
no longer work -- these lds files have been removed.
Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Tested-by: Graeme Russ <graeme.russ@gmail.com>
14 years ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OBJCOPYFLAGS += --gap-fill=0xff
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += $(RELFLAGS)
|
|
|
|
|
PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -pipe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LDFLAGS += $(PLATFORM_LDFLAGS)
|
|
|
|
|
LDFLAGS_FINAL += -Bstatic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
export PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS
|
|
|
|
|
export RELFLAGS
|
|
|
|
|
export LDFLAGS_FINAL
|
|
|
|
|
export CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR
|
