Building multiple u-boot binaries in oe-core?

Building multiple u-boot binaries in oe-core?

[Ulf Samuelsson]

I added the functionality for building multiple u-boot binaries to
classic openembedded, but this has not been implemented in oe-core.
I find that rather useful. Anyone disagreeing?

The core of this is:

do_compile () {
     if ! [ "x${UBOOT_MACHINES}" == "x" ] ; then
         for board in ${UBOOT_MACHINES} ; do
             if ! [ `grep ${board}_config Makefile | wc -c` == 0 ] ; then
                 mkdir -p binaries/${board}
                 oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} distclean
                 oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} ${board}_config
                 oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} all
             fi
         done
     else
            oe_runmake ${UBOOT_MACHINE}
            oe_runmake all
     fi
}

Note that I removed the _config part from UBOOT_MACHINES.

At the moment, the binary after youv'e done
"make beagleboard_config; make" will be called:
u-boot-beagleboard_config-${PV}-${PR}.bin

I think "u-boot-beagleboard-${PV}-${PR}.bin" is nicer.

There aren't that many boards in oe-core at the moment.
Isn't this a good time to get rid of UBOOT_MACHINE altogher
and/or redefine it without the "_config"

P.S: I am working on another project right now, so I don't know
when I have time to test this out on oe-core, so anyone
else interested, feel free to implement it

-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Building multiple u-boot binaries in oe-core?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 18-10-11 10:13, Ulf Samuelsson schreef:
> I added the functionality for building multiple u-boot binaries to 
> classic openembedded, but this has not been implemented in oe-core. I
> find that rather useful. Anyone disagreeing?
> 
> The core of this is:
> 
> do_compile () { if ! [ "x${UBOOT_MACHINES}" == "x" ] ; then for board in
> ${UBOOT_MACHINES} ; do if ! [ `grep ${board}_config Makefile | wc -c` ==
> 0 ] ; then mkdir -p binaries/${board} oe_runmake O=binaries/${board}
> distclean oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} ${board}_config oe_runmake
> O=binaries/${board} all fi done else oe_runmake ${UBOOT_MACHINE} 
> oe_runmake all fi }
> 
> Note that I removed the _config part from UBOOT_MACHINES.
> 
> At the moment, the binary after youv'e done "make beagleboard_config;
> make" will be called: u-boot-beagleboard_config-${PV}-${PR}.bin
> 
> I think "u-boot-beagleboard-${PV}-${PR}.bin" is nicer.
> 
> There aren't that many boards in oe-core at the moment.

4 qemu machine to be exact

> Isn't this a good time to get rid of UBOOT_MACHINE altogher and/or
> redefine it without the "_config"

Not sure, there are a *lot* of BSPs out there where _config is expected to
be there.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iD8DBQFOnTfkMkyGM64RGpERAhgKAJ934JngAAMd33iLVGrYVKYKJ7Am8ACfaxKL
GdSJOI5qgK2eFk7OwHwD3eU=
=62Sb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Building multiple u-boot binaries in oe-core?

[Ulf Samuelsson]

2011-10-18 10:25, Koen Kooi skrev:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Op 18-10-11 10:13, Ulf Samuelsson schreef:
>> I added the functionality for building multiple u-boot binaries to
>> classic openembedded, but this has not been implemented in oe-core. I
>> find that rather useful. Anyone disagreeing?
>>
>> The core of this is:
do_compile ()
{

	if ! [ "x${UBOOT_MACHINES}" == "x" ] ; then
	    for board in ${UBOOT_MACHINES} ; do
		if ! [ `grep ${board}_config Makefile | wc -c` == 0 ] ; then
			mkdir -p binaries/${board}
			oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} distclean
			oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} ${board}_config
			oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} all
		fi
	    done
	else
	    oe_runmake ${UBOOT_MACHINE}
	    oe_runmake all
	fi
}

| Note that I removed the _config part from UBOOT_MACHINES.
|
| At the moment, the binary after youv'e done "make beagleboard_config;
| make" will be called: u-boot-beagleboard_config-${PV}-${PR}.bin
| I think "u-boot-beagleboard-${PV}-${PR}.bin" is nicer.

| There aren't that many boards in oe-core at the moment.

> 4 qemu machine to be exact
>
>> Isn't this a good time to get rid of UBOOT_MACHINE altogher and/or
>> redefine it without the "_config"
> Not sure, there are a *lot* of BSPs out there where _config is expected to
> be there.

A simple "sed" script would fix most if not all of the machine descriptions.
Doing it the way I did it in openembedded classic, will of course
remove the need, but leaving the u-boot recipe somewhat unclean.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
>
> iD8DBQFOnTfkMkyGM64RGpERAhgKAJ934JngAAMd33iLVGrYVKYKJ7Am8ACfaxKL
> GdSJOI5qgK2eFk7OwHwD3eU=
> =62Sb
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel


-- 
Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Building multiple u-boot binaries in oe-core?

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Op 18-10-11 10:13, Ulf Samuelsson schreef:
>> I added the functionality for building multiple u-boot binaries to
>> classic openembedded, but this has not been implemented in oe-core. I
>> find that rather useful. Anyone disagreeing?

I find this very useful and will need to do something similar soon if
you don't get to it first ;) I've already internally used some of your
old stuff I believe.

>> The core of this is:
>>
>> do_compile () { if ! [ "x${UBOOT_MACHINES}" == "x" ] ; then for board in
>> ${UBOOT_MACHINES} ; do if ! [ `grep ${board}_config Makefile | wc -c` ==
>> 0 ] ; then mkdir -p binaries/${board} oe_runmake O=binaries/${board}
>> distclean oe_runmake O=binaries/${board} ${board}_config oe_runmake
>> O=binaries/${board} all fi done else oe_runmake ${UBOOT_MACHINE}
>> oe_runmake all fi }

For us UBOOT_MACHINES = "P4008DS P4080DS_SPIFLASH P4080DS_SDCARD P4080DS_NAND"

Sometimes u-boot has different final output images, so maybe having
the machine.conf files do something like

UBOOT_OUTPUT["P4080DS_NAND"] = u-boot-nand.bin

So we can automagically have this work in the u-boot recipe.

>> Note that I removed the _config part from UBOOT_MACHINES.

I think upstream u-boot does not require this anymore.

>> At the moment, the binary after youv'e done "make beagleboard_config;
>> make" will be called: u-boot-beagleboard_config-${PV}-${PR}.bin
>>
>> I think "u-boot-beagleboard-${PV}-${PR}.bin" is nicer.

I agree.

>> There aren't that many boards in oe-core at the moment.
>
> 4 qemu machine to be exact
>
>> Isn't this a good time to get rid of UBOOT_MACHINE altogher and/or
>> redefine it without the "_config"

Seems fine either way to me, but I tend to think UBOOT_MACHINE could go away.


> Not sure, there are a *lot* of BSPs out there where _config is expected to
> be there.

Are these using an old u-boot?

-M