[OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: Factor out common bits

[Marek Vasut]

On 09/05/2016 03:51 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
>> On 09/05/2016 01:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 00:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
>>>>>>> perform
>>>>>>> update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this
>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>> patch
>>>>>>> as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the
>>>>>>> version
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only
>>>>>>> rename
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their
>>>>>>> content and
>>>>>>> change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> toil.
>>>>>> Unless its:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...
>>>>> Ah right, thanks :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .
>>>>>
>>>> I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without
>>>> having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ?
>>>
>>> Just put includes in the versioned files rather than from u-boot.inc?
>>
>> Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
>> afterall.
> 
> It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the
> recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading
> it.
> 
The u-boot recipe mess would need _far_ more cleanup . If you don't mind
me breaking all sorts of BSPs , I would gladly do far more intrusive
changes. What do you say ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut