Hello Michael, I tried something you proposed, but it does not work yet, will proceed tomorrow. I started this mail with some now obsolete info, but wrote some more things, which I do not want to throw away once written. See below.
Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2018, 14:26:10 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 01:27:13PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > What I did was creating a new platform image rule depending on > > HOST_U_BOOT_TOOLS. Creating an U-Boot environment image file is > > independent > > from building U-Boot itself and it creates an artefact I would consider an > > image. I'm not happy seeing this feature inside the U-Boot target package > > itself. > > Ahmad had a separate package originally but I told him to integrate it... > It seemed more natural to me. Maybe because the environment is more > integrated in barebox and that's what I usually use. > But I'm not too set on it either way. Well, I mixed things up here. There's a difference between creating an U-Boot script and wrap that in an U-Boot image (mkimage) and creating a binary file with an U-Boot environment (mkenvimage). What we actually do is creating one script to put on the target in /boot (basically with patch 7/7 now) and another script to put in platform-*/images for serving by an tftp server (which needs some replacements). > What about the script (patch 7/7)? Do you think that should be a separate > package too? I will send a revised version of Ahmad's patch. Greets Alex _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de
