From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot: introduce at91bootstrap4
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:03:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210426220343.003df308@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210423070822.1351638-1-eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
Hello Eugen,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:08:22 +0300
Eugen Hristev via buildroot <buildroot@busybox.net> wrote:
> Introduce new bootloader package for the next generation
> of at91bootstrap, at91bootstrap4
>
> AT91Bootstrap4 only supports devices: sam9x60, sama5d2, sama5d3,
> sama5d4, sama7g5.
>
> Based on at91bootstrap3 recipes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
Why would we need a new package for this? It still like just a new
version of at91bootstrap. I just had a look a the differences between
at91bootstrap3/ and at91bootstrap4/ and here are the only meaningful
differences:
+ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_NEEDS_PYTHON3),y)
+AT91BOOTSTRAP3_DEPENDENCIES += host-python3
+endif
-AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = Atmel License
+AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = Microchip License
(this one perhaps applies to at91bootstrap3 as well, in fact)
define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_IMAGES_CMDS
- cp $(@D)/binaries/*.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)
+ cp $(@D)/build/binaries/*.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)
endef
So, shouldn't we instead have a single package covering both? Perhaps
with a sub-option to select "latest 3.x version" and "latest 4.x
version" ?
I know it would be annoying for this package to be named
"at91boostrap3". Perhaps we should, for once, do a bit of renaming
dance and change at91bootstrap to at91bootstrap1 or at91bootstrap-old,
and keep "at91bootstrap" for the "new" 3.x/4.x version? It is not great
in terms of backward compatibility for old configs, though.
(Side note: I find it somewhat annoying that such vendor-provided
solutions tend to drop support for older platforms... It seems that
open-source communities do a better job at maintaining long-term
support for older platforms. What would you say if you had to use a
decade old Buildroot or Yocto to build a system for an AT91SAM9263
processor ?)
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-26 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-23 7:08 [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot: introduce at91bootstrap4 Eugen Hristev
2021-04-26 20:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2021-04-27 6:07 ` Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com
2021-04-27 6:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2021-04-27 15:20 ` Nicolas Ferre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210426220343.003df308@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.