From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexey Brodkin Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:20:01 +0000 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] u-boot: 2015.07 - fix creation of .config In-Reply-To: <1438600559.13201.4.camel@synopsys.com> References: <1438351475-14447-1-git-send-email-abrodkin@synopsys.com> <20150731161818.2056383e@free-electrons.com> <1438355649.4848.41.camel@synopsys.com> <1438600559.13201.4.camel@synopsys.com> Message-ID: <1439295600.3252.2.camel@synopsys.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 14:15 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 18:14 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:18 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > > Alexey, > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:04:35 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > > Due to recent changes in U-Boot, see > > > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=a26cd04920dc069fd6e91abb785426cf6c29f45f > > > > re-creation of .config from defconfig by "make oldconfig" happened > > > > incorrectly. > > > > > > Hum, reverting an upstream patch doesn't really seem like a proper > > > solution for the problem. Also, it will only fix the problem for those > > > using exactly U-Boot 2015.07, but not for the majority of users who > > > have to use a vendor-specific U-Boot version (unfortunately). > > > > > > So I believe we need to fix this properly, not by reverting an upstream > > > patch. > > > > To be honest I think that revert will happen upstream as well. > > Recently I started discussion on that regard here http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-July/221101.html > > > > The point is that problem has to be resolved upstream anyways in that or another way and I'll make sure > > it happens sooner [I hope] or later. Because you know we prefer to stick to upstream and so we do care upstream > > projects work for us. > > > > And if [I hope] discussed problem is gone before the next release of Buildroot do we really care > > how the problem is solved in Buildroot for existing release? > > > > Note that problem I'm attempting to fix doesn't really affect U-Boot compilation or execution. > > This is only related to its buildsystem. As a developers of U-Boot we [even though it was not I in person > > behind that patch but I saw this and didn't recognize upcoming problem with oldconfig] wanted to make > > life of U-Boot users a bit easier [see commit message to the original commit] but that attempt > > caused problems for those who builds U-Boot in non-standard way [I mean not via "make xxx_defconfig && make"]. > > > > Hopefully that comment makes sense. > > > > If not do you think there's a better way to fix a failure on attempt to build vanilla U-Boot v2015.07? > > > > BTW speaking about vendor-specific U-Boot versions I think it's now mostly our legacy now. > > If I'm not mistaken lots of boards may use vanilla U-Boot. For example Cubieboards and Wandboards > > (I own these boards and tried vanilla U-boot on them) and many more ARM boards supported in Fedora > > for ARM like Pandaboard, Olinuxinos etc. So it's just a matter of maintainers of those boards > > (if we have them at all) to try latest vanilla U-Boot and update defconfigs then if all works. > > Looks like resolution in upstream U-Boot will be with specification of default "platform" for each architecture. > See http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-August/221418.html, > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-August/221417.html > > Still this will take quite some time to update all affected 54 Kconfigs. > > So probably proposed patch with revert in Buildroot makes perfect sense as we only build U-Boot but not > adding new "platforms" etc i.e. proposed patch IMHO won't hurt. > > -Alexey Any chance for this one to be applied? Note without this change or anything similar U-Boot from snsp_axs10x_defconfig fails to config. -Alexey