Hi Tom, On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 15:20, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:03:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 19:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:23:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > It has become more common to use config fragments to extend or adjust > > > > the functionality of boards in U-Boot. > > > > > > > > Propose a format for how to deal with this. It is not implemented as > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > I think that the first problem is that this patch series is an > > > inappropriate method and place to start the discussion. > > > > We had a discussion a year ago but it trailed off. > > OK. Still an inappropriate place to resurrect it.
What do you suggest? I am trying to solve the problem, not just talk about it, so patches are often best for that. > > > > I also think this gets things backwards as the common case is "make", > > > not "buildman". We need more defconfig's that are just base + > > > fragment(s) if they're important enough to be a combination that needs > > > to be tested and work. A board is not a time-expensive part of CI. A > > > pytest run is, a new job itself is. > > > > OK, that would work too. It would also avoid the problem of combinatorial > > explosion. But I am not seeing people actually doing that, with rare > > exceptions. > > I think it's the exception, not the rule, where config fragments are not > being put to use in a defconfig. And that's possibly because not a lot > of people seem to know about the #include option, and then when I > explain it exists to people the next problem is "Oh, I have to do what > so that buildman also works?". Are you looking for any feature in Buildman for this? This series is intended to fix [1] Regards, Simon [1] https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/issues/30
