[OE-core] [RFC] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow target-specific fw_env.config

[Brad Mouring]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:59:55PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 06/20/2017 10:53 PM, Brad Mouring wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:43:51PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >> On 06/20/2017 10:40 PM, Brad Mouring wrote:
> >>> As implemented currently, the fw-utils recipe does not allow for
> >>> ...
> >>> +# by the U-Boot environment utilities "fw_printenv" and "fw_setenv".
> >>> +# By default, use the default included in the U-Boot source
> >>> +UBOOT_FW_ENV_CONFIG ??= "${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config"
> >>> +
> >>>  inherit uboot-config
> >>>  
> >>>  do_compile () {
> >>> @@ -19,7 +24,7 @@ do_install () {
> >>>  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
> >>>  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
> >>>  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
> >>> -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> >>> +	install -m 0644 ${UBOOT_FW_ENV_CONFIG} ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> >>
> >> Do we really need yet another variable ? Wouldn't it make more sense to
> >> add do_install_append_yourmachine() {} in your meta-whatever to
> >> u-boot-fw-utils_%.bbappend and install whatever additional files you need ?
> > 
> > This is (kinda) what we were doing, there was some discussion as to
> > whether or not this made sense upstream.
> 
> Link?

I know it's not a great answer, but we've not pushed the version of the
branch where these changes are going in. Eventually, they'll end up in
this repo:

https://github.com/ni/meta-nilrt

> > I was unsure of the
> > acceptability of a do_install_append.*() clobbering a file of the
> > original do_install().
> 
> That's probably what really needs to be discussed.
> 
> We can probably add some task which by default installs the
> fw_env.config example and can be overridden in meta-whatever . Maybe the
> others can jump into here and explain how to handle overriding the
> default config file best.

That sounds like a solution that would certainly work for this
use-case, if no one pipes up with objections or a currently-unseen
silver bullet solution, I'll try to whip something together tomorrow
and post. Thanks for the idea.

Denys, I know you keep pushing the "shove it in a do_install_append()",
but to me and my under-informed sensibilities, this seems weird and
unclean to clobber a file in a _append(), would it cause some QA failure?

> -- 
> Best regards,
> Marek Vasut

Regards,
Brad Mouring