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

[Brad Mouring]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:22:58AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:33:24PM -0500, Brad Mouring wrote:
> > 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
> > > >>> ...
> > > >>
> > > >> 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?
> 
> Hmm, I mentioned it only once... To a patch that does already mention 
> appending stuff...

Fair. I thought you'd also mentioned it on irc, but it doesn't really
matter. After sleeping on it, I think I've gotten over my distaste for
overwriting a file when we're already glomming changes atop the original
recipe. I'll just take that approach.

Thanks,
Brad Mouring