On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 06:56:36 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 06:16:01 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> 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... > > > > The machine is just that, the name of the machine. For machine foo, the > > UBOOT_MACHINE should be foo , not foo_defconfig . The _defconfig should > > be added by the recipe, but certainly not by the user, since that would > > be a dirty hack and confusing as hell. The "foo_defconfig" string would > > only be sensible for UBOOT_CONFIG variable, but no way for UBOOT_MACHINE. > > UBOOT_CONFIG is different on this context; it is more like PACKAGECONFIG. > > You can see, for example: > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-fsl-arm/tree/conf/machine/im > x6qsabresd.conf#n14 > > So I understand it is a little confusing but it is indeed how it has been > done.
Just because some variable is misused in some metalayer doesn't make it right, does it ? -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
