Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] hw/tricore: fix inclusion of tricore_testboard

[Peter Maydell]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 at 10:47, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 20:52, Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> We inadvertently added a symbol clash causing the build not to include
> >> the testboard needed for check-tcg.
> >>
> >> Fixes: f4063f9c31 ("meson: Introduce target-specific Kconfig")
> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  configs/devices/tricore-softmmu/default.mak | 1 +
> >>  hw/tricore/Kconfig                          | 3 +--
> >>  hw/tricore/meson.build                      | 4 ++--
> >>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> > as far as this fix goes (though maybe CONFIG_TRICORE_TESTBOARD would be 
> > better?)
> >
> > But I still don't understand and would like to know:
> > (1) why doesn't CONFIG_TRICORE get set by Kconfig anyway, as
> > f4063f9c31 claims to be doing?
>
> It does (or should) thanks to meson:
>
>   'CONFIG_' + config_target['TARGET_ARCH'].to_upper() + '=y'

Yeah, but it doesn't, as you can see if you look at the meson build
log: we do pass CONFIG_TRICORE=y on the minikconf command line,
but it doesn't appear in minikconf's output!

> > (2) what are the CONFIG_$ARCH flags for? Apart from this, we
> > don't seem to be using any of them, as demonstrated by the fact
> > that nothing else broke :-)
>
> They need to be declared in Kconfig otherwise minikconf complains about
> them not being defined when you pass it in. This is part of minikconf's
> sanity checking code.

No, I mean, if nothing anywhere in the build system is conditional
on these flags, why do we have them at all ? We know we don't
have anything that cares about them, because right now we have
a bug where they're never set...

-- PMM