From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:55:40 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] at91bootstrap: bump version to 3.2 In-Reply-To: <1343248264-6435-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> References: <1343248264-6435-1-git-send-email-spdawson@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120727085540.211a4709@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, Le Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:31:04 +0100, spdawson at gmail.com a ?crit : > From: Simon Dawson > > Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson > --- > boot/at91bootstrap/Config.in | 28 +- > .../at91bootstrap-1.16-eabi-fix.patch | 334 --------- > .../at91bootstrap-1.16-u-boot-relocation-fix.patch | 299 -------- > .../at91bootstrap-3.2-u-boot-relocation-fix.patch | 750 ++++++++++++++++++++ > boot/at91bootstrap/at91bootstrap.mk | 34 +- > 5 files changed, 769 insertions(+), 676 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 boot/at91bootstrap/at91bootstrap-1.16-eabi-fix.patch > delete mode 100644 boot/at91bootstrap/at91bootstrap-1.16-u-boot-relocation-fix.patch > create mode 100644 boot/at91bootstrap/at91bootstrap-3.2-u-boot-relocation-fix.patch For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap 1.x. See for example board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore, removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple. Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is, and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com