[PATCH] u-boot-rockchip: update require path

[PATCH] u-boot-rockchip: update require path

[Trevor Woerner]

The oe-core recipe was updated (2017.05 -> 2017.07), this recipe needed to
be updated to suit. However, this u-boot (from rockchip) is still at version
2017.05.

Signed-off-by: Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com>
---
 recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-rockchip_git.bb | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-rockchip_git.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-rockchip_git.bb
index c0b1ff6..1f4a644 100644
--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-rockchip_git.bb
+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-rockchip_git.bb
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 # Released under the MIT license (see COPYING.MIT for the terms)
 
 require recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
-require recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common_2017.05.inc
+require recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common_2017.07.inc
 
 DESCRIPTION = "Rockchip next-dev U-Boot"
 COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(firefly-rk3288|rock2-square)"
-- 
2.13.0

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-rockchip: update require path

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:40:32PM -0400, Trevor Woerner wrote:

> The oe-core recipe was updated (2017.05 -> 2017.07), this recipe needed to
> be updated to suit. However, this u-boot (from rockchip) is still at version
> 2017.05.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com>

Not an objection, but, what's missing to move to just using upstream
u-boot?

-- 
Tom

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-rockchip: update require path

[Trevor Woerner]

Hey Tom,

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:40:32PM -0400, Trevor Woerner wrote:
>
>> The oe-core recipe was updated (2017.05 -> 2017.07), this recipe needed to
>> be updated to suit. However, this u-boot (from rockchip) is still at version
>> 2017.05.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com>
>
> Not an objection, but, what's missing to move to just using upstream
> u-boot?

Excellent question! I was just thinking the same thing myself as I was
preparing this patch :-)

This patch is a maintenance patch that will allow builds to succeed,
but I admit it isn't ideal.

At this point I'm hoping
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-July/139974.html
goes in so I can make 2 sets of recipes: one for rockchip components
and one for upstream. At that point I'll evaluate all the upstream
things and all the rockchip things to make sure they work on the
boards I have. At that point I can clean all this up.

Hopefully I'll also be able to add the tinker board rk3288 and the firefly 3399.

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-rockchip: update require path

[Jack Mitchell]

On 23/07/2017 02:41, Trevor Woerner wrote:
> Hey Tom,
>
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 06:40:32PM -0400, Trevor Woerner wrote:
>>
>>> The oe-core recipe was updated (2017.05 -> 2017.07), this recipe needed to
>>> be updated to suit. However, this u-boot (from rockchip) is still at version
>>> 2017.05.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com>
>> Not an objection, but, what's missing to move to just using upstream
>> u-boot?
> Excellent question! I was just thinking the same thing myself as I was
> preparing this patch :-)
>
> This patch is a maintenance patch that will allow builds to succeed,
> but I admit it isn't ideal.
>
> At this point I'm hoping
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-July/139974.html
> goes in so I can make 2 sets of recipes: one for rockchip components
> and one for upstream. At that point I'll evaluate all the upstream
> things and all the rockchip things to make sure they work on the
> boards I have. At that point I can clean all this up.
>
> Hopefully I'll also be able to add the tinker board rk3288 and the firefly 3399.

I have a small layer I use for booting mainline components on the 
tinker, so i can confirm that works with current upstream.

https://github.com/jackmitch/meta-tinker

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-rockchip: update require path

[Trevor Woerner]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:46 AM, Jack Mitchell <ml@embed.me.uk> wrote:
> I have a small layer I use for booting mainline components on the tinker, so
> i can confirm that works with current upstream.
>
> https://github.com/jackmitch/meta-tinker


Thanks! :-D