On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@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 <ma...@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 <ma...@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 <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 ? >> >> >> >> 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... Adding Tom, on Cc, so he can also comment. -- 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 -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
