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

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> 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 ?

I am not OE-Core maintainer but I think we ought to push for simple
things and making behind the scenes suffix appending to generate a
value goes on the opposite direction, from my point of view.

Also this u-boot.inc change will make impossible for people to use OLD
versions of U-Boot without duplicating it and hacking it. A bad side
effect.

>From me, this is Nack!

-- 
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