On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 04:39:53 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@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 <ma...@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 ? > Doing this 'under the hood' change hides wrong settings and I think we > should no do this. the defconfig is in use for a while (2 release, > from YP point of view) and people had time to move the BSP to use > proper values. Best regards, Marek Vasut -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
