Hi Marek, On 03/05/2018 18:59, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 05/03/2018 06:50 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: >> On 03/05/2018 18:36, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> On 05/03/2018 06:28 PM, Stefano Babic wrote: >>>> On 27/04/2018 17:07, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> On 04/27/2018 04:51 PM, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >>>>>> This commit provides the ability to generate u-boot environment(s) as >>>>>> images, which afterwards can be used to produce image (with wic) for >>>>>> flashing (eMMC or SPI-NOR). >>>>>> >>>>>> This change removes the need to run "env default" during production >>>>>> phase, >>>>>> as proper environment (including redundant one) is already stored on >>>>>> persistent memory (the CRC is also correct). >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> If your default env is correct, why do you need this ? I can see some >>>>> use with non-default env, but then that can be wrapped into a separate >>>>> recipe. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A use case is when the environment must be changed from user space. >>>> fw_setenv will report the CRC error and it needs the default environment >>>> to add changes. The default environment is linked together to fw_setenv, >>>> but this prohibites to use fw_setenv for multiple boards and must be >>>> explicitely built for that machine and with the same sources as u-boot >>>> (at least, they must share the same CONFIG_EXTRA_ENV). If the default >>>> environment is extracted, we could have a general (distro ?) fw_setenv. >>> >>> I think in that case, the real solution is to either build fw_setenv per >>> machine >> >> This is how we try to do now, fw_setenv is built per machine but it is >> enough that u-boot-fw-utils is built in a different version as u-boot to >> get a mess. > > Well yes, if you mix and match packages, it becomes a mess. Isn't that > to be expected ? >
Well, quite. But in the specific case, it is weird that the environment tools are built by a separate recipe. u-boot-fw-utils generates binaries from the same sources as u-boot (or it should), and building the tool per machine means for me to have a single recipe for it, that generates as additional package the env tools. This guarantees that they are always in sync. >>> OR fix fw_setenv to take env defaults from a file or somesuch ? >> Having a separate recipe as now means for me to try to have the tools not per machine, and then makes sense to pass as input the default environment to the tools. >> Right, I interprete this patch as a step in this direction. This patch >> generates a default that can be used as input for fw_setenv. > > It generates environment images which can be written -- on certain > specific setups -- into the flash. It doesn't generate any sort of input > for the fw_setenv to my knowledge ? Not the current patch - we are discussing how it could evolve ;-) Regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] ===================================================================== -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
