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

[Marek Vasut]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 06:56:36 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> 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/im
> x6qsabresd.conf#n14
> 
> So I understand it is a little confusing but it is indeed how it has been
> done.

Just because some variable is misused in some metalayer doesn't make it right,
does it ?