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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> 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.

I think it makes more sense than it adding _defconfig suffix behind
the scenes...

Adding Tom, on Cc, so he can also comment.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750