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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 06:16:01 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> 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...
>
> The machine is just that, the name of the machine. For machine foo, the
> UBOOT_MACHINE should be foo , not foo_defconfig . The _defconfig should
> be added by the recipe, but certainly not by the user, since that would
> be a dirty hack and confusing as hell. The "foo_defconfig" string would
> only be sensible for UBOOT_CONFIG variable, but no way for UBOOT_MACHINE.

UBOOT_CONFIG is different on this context; it is more like PACKAGECONFIG.

You can see, for example:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-fsl-arm/tree/conf/machine/imx6qsabresd.conf#n14

So I understand it is a little confusing but it is indeed how it has been done.

-- 
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