[OE-core] [PATCH] u-boot: Update to 2016.01 release

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 05:40:20 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 04:55:56 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 04:39:53 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> >> >> > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 01:04:31 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:36 AM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Upgrade U-Boot to latest version and drop upstreamed patches.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Repair configuration of U-Boot during build. It is no longer
> >> >> >> > possible to run "make foomachine" in U-Boot. Instead, it is
> >> >> >> > necessary to do "make foomachine_defconfig ; make". Fix this
> >> >> >> > in u-boot.inc and u-boot-fw-utils*.bb .
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Please drop this config suffix, from u-boot.inc. The config value
> >> >> >> should be used as is and the respective BSP ought to be fixed to
> >> >> >> change _config to _defconfig.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > If I don't have the _defconfig there AND I define UBOOT_MACHINE in
> >> >> > my machine file, it will call "make machine", which no longer
> >> >> > works.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I know and the right fix is to use the right value to UBOOT_MACHINE
> >> >> as we do for KERNEL_DEVICETREE.
> >> > 
> >> > So what is the right value ? UBOOT_MACHINE := "foo_defconfig" ? This
> >> > does not sound right at all.
> >> > 
> >> > And what is the right value of UBOOT_CONFIG then ?
> >> 
> >> foo_defconfig.
> >> 
> >> This is what we pass for make to configure the board and should be the
> >> given value.
> > 
> > OK, that makes sense. You didn't answer my question about UBOOT_MACHINE
> > though. Any thoughts on that ?
> 
> If using UBOOT_MACHINE = "foo_defconfig" will work just fine.

This makes no sense at all, does it ? How can UBOOT_MACHINE contain _defconfig ?
This sounds like a crude hack, not a systematic solution.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut