Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v9 05/22] boot/ti-k3-r5-loader: bump to version 2024.01

From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
To: Andreas Dannenberg <dannenberg@ti.com>
Cc: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>,
	linux-amarula@amarulasolutions.com,
	Asaf Kahlon <asafka7@gmail.com>,
	Xuanhao Shi <X15000177@gmail.com>,
	James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	buildroot@buildroot.org, Romain Naour <romain.naour@smile.fr>,
	michael@amarulasolutions.com,
	Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com>,
	bryce@redpinelabs.com, Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v9 05/22] boot/ti-k3-r5-loader: bump to version 2024.01
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 07:14:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zfp-rk1BDxhDnkZi@landeda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240320021823.gbwmzxmfmgqmbyiw@dasso>

Andreas, All,

On 2024-03-19 21:18 -0500, Andreas Dannenberg via buildroot spake thusly:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 11:09:32PM +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> > On 2024-03-04 16:32 +0100, Dario Binacchi spake thusly:
> > > All in-tree configs with the ti-k3-r5 bootloader use a custom version,
> > > so this patch is mostly for the menuconfig default version
[--SNIP--]
> > Speaking of that, by the way, ti-k3-r5-loader really is uboot, so I
> > think that it should share:
> >  1. the same DL_DIR:   TI_K3_R5_LOADER_DL_SUBDIR = uboot
> >  2. the same hash file:  have ti-k3-r5-loader.hash be a symlink to
> >     uboot.hash  (and have a xomment at the top of that hash file that it
> >     is shared and that old hashes should/can be kept)
> The entire boot chain for TI K3 devices (like all of AM62x) comprising
> what's known as ti-k3-r5-loaer in Buildroot as well as U-Boot SPL/U-Boot
> [proper] should _always_ be built from the same U-Boot source commit, as
> this is how it's developed, tested, and used by pretty much everybody.
> So your suggestion to more closely tie those things together makes a lot
> of sense IMHO.

Ah, interesting, thanks for the feedback.

So, it looks like for the situation for ti-k3-r5-loaer vs. U-Boot is
very similar to the one for barebox: it can build a "base" barebox, and
an "aux" barebox; they both share the same implementation (the
barebox-package mini-infra), they each provide their own (def|.)config
file, and they each have their own set of (Buildroot) options (the aux
one has fewer options).

So it looks like this is what we should have done for ti-k3-r5-loaer,
no?

Also, does it make sense to use ti-k3-r5-loaer without U-Boot?

Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.

-- 
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
|  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
| +33 561 099 427 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot