From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F9EEEAA6B for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:42:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout4.zoneedit.com (mailout4.zoneedit.com [64.68.198.64]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web11.4128.1694720569854444889 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 12:42:50 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=none (message not signed); spf=pass (domain: denix.org, ip: 64.68.198.64, mailfrom: denis@denix.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout4.zoneedit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E8E40C3A; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout4.zoneedit.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmo14-pco.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o2-1z-0Gk-Eb; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.denix.org (pool-100-15-110-236.washdc.fios.verizon.net [100.15.110.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout4.zoneedit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5BC9A40A28; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:42:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0C737163CAA; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 15:42:39 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko To: Ryan Eatmon Cc: c-shilwant@ti.com, Praneeth Bajjuri , meta-ti@lists.yoctoproject.org, Sai Sree Kartheek Adivi , Paresh Bhagat , Khasim , Gyan Gupta Subject: Re: [meta-ti][master/kirkstone][PATCH 1/2] recipes-bsp: u-boot: Add u-boot-mergeconfig.inc to handle fragment u-boot config Message-ID: <20230914194239.GN3359@denix.org> References: <20230908203004.2764200-1-c-shilwant@ti.com> <20230912200403.GH3359@denix.org> <20230914170845.GK3359@denix.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:42:53 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/16975 On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 01:23:31PM -0500, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > > > On 9/14/2023 12:08 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 10:12:57PM +0530, Chirag Shilwant via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > >>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 > >>>>--- > >>>> 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. > > > >It does: > >https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-ti/tree/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/am335x-hs-evm.conf#n7 > > > >Which means, since your new code is added to all TI platforms, it could > >potentially break AM335x HS platform. > > The code is wrapped behind the setting of UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENT, so > unless we set both UBOOT_CONFIG_FRAGMENT and UBOOT_CONFIG in am335 > it should be ok. Correct, that's why I phrased it as "could potentially break". Maybe not even specific to TI's AM335x HS, but to some downstream customer platform using meta-ti. As meta-ti is not the end product. > >>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. > > > >Actually, the support was pretty much always there in U-boot, as kconfig > >framework along with support for fragments by calling merge_config.sh was > >borrowed from the kernel long ago and had been periodically synced with > >latest. Though U-boot didn't have own in-tree config fragments until very > >recently. First few got into the main config/ directory, but going forward > >those will reside in the corresponding board/ directories... > > > > > >>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. > > > >Sure, this can be handled in stages. A bit more checks would be needed then > >to avoid breaking at least UBOOT_CONFIG use case. > > > > > >>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.