On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 02:00:04AM +0530, Chirag Shilwant wrote: > - Add a new file u-boot-mergeconfig.inc which will ensure we handle fragment > u-boot configs > using a new variable UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENT which stores the name of fragment > u-boot config > to be used.
Would be nice to provide extra details here in the commit message about config fragment support in U-boot and its recipe. E.g.: * U-boot recipe in OE-Core supports out-of-tree config fragments that are passed via SRC_URI and automatically merges all *.cfg files as fragments. This makes specifying config fragments in the machine configuration a bit difficult. * U-boot itself supports in-tree config fragments and recently been adding fragments with *.config extension (first in configs/ dir, but will be moving to the corresponding board/ dir), so adding a way to specify and pass those. > - Include u-boot-mergeconfig.inc in u-boot-ti.inc > > Signed-off-by: Chirag Shilwant <[email protected]> > --- > meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mergeconfig.inc | 7 +++++++ > meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc | 1 + > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mergeconfig.inc > > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mergeconfig.inc > b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mergeconfig.inc > new file mode 100644 > index 00000000..69db6260 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mergeconfig.inc > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > +do_compile:prepend () { Should be done in do_configure instead. Tasks should be self-contained and granular. Plus, do_compile can be repeated w/o do_configure. If you are re-configuring every time and generate a new .config file in do_compile, that would probably trigger full re-compile due to make tracking file timestamps... > + if [ -n "${UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENT}" ] Multiple fragments are supported, so maybe call it UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENTS plural? > + then > + oe_runmake -C ${S} O=${B} ${UBOOT_MACHINE} ${UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENT} > + oe_runmake -C ${S} O=${B} olddefconfig > + fi So, this basically repeats configuration done in u-boot-configure.inc in OE-Core. But it also ignores UBOOT_CONFIG support for multiple (def-)configs. While I realize you just want to address a single use-case, making it a bit future-proof shouldn't be overlooked. Think of supporting both UBOOT_CONFIG and UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENTS at the same time. Probably completely rewriting do_configure from u-boot-configure.inc would be needed... BTW, UBOOT_CONFIG naming is unfortunate - it has nothing to do with config fragments. While UBOOT_MACHINE specifies a single defconfig, UBOOT_CONFIG takes a list of defconfigs and iterates through them building each separately. > +} > diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > index f3285c23..5292517b 100644 > --- a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti.inc > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ SPL_BINARY ?= "MLO" > > require ${COREBASE}/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc > require ${COREBASE}/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc > +require u-boot-mergeconfig.inc > > FILESEXTRAPATHS:prepend := "${THISDIR}/u-boot:" > > -- > 2.34.1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16959): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/16959 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101245468/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/leave/6695321/21656/1393940836/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
