On 13/09/23 01:34, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
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.
Sure, will update the commit message & provide extra details in my v2
PATCH.
- 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...
Yes, we can update this to happen in do_configure. I believe
do_configure:append should be good & will work. Will handle this in v2.
+ 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.
Thanks for your suggestions. I appreciate your idea to cover all use
cases with u-boot-mergeconfig.inc, but I have few concerns due to the
current release situation we are into.
As far as I know, meta-ti does not have a use case for UBOOT_CONFIG
itself. We are using UBOOT_MACHINE for handling the base defconfig,
which works well for our needs. The concept of having u-boot fragments
was introduced recently in ti-u-boot after we got a feedback from
upstream uboot as around 90% of configs were same between am62xx-evm &
am62xxsip-evm. This was a valid input and hence we considered in
ti-u-boot. In order to support that I had to find a quick way to handle
this in Yocto it with UBOOT_MACHINE along with UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENT
logic, which I had also discussed with you on the syncup call.
Considering that the am62xxsip-evm release is only two weeks away, can
we consider the fragments approach for now and avoid any potential risks
or delays. I will work with you in coming weeks to make this better by
handling all the cases of uboot-config and fragments.
Please let me know if I you agree with my views and if I can proceed
with fixing the other issues you highlighted, they are trivial I can
submit a patch tomorrow.
+}
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 (#16963):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/16963
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101245468/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
