From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 20:56:32 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Patchwork oldest patches cleanup #5 (deadline January 19) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20140128205632.7b5c3100@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Thomas De Schampheleire, On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 21:58:52 +0100, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > > [RFC,1/2] barebox: Build barebox in separate directory. > > Marek Belisko > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/207942 > > > > [RFC,2/2] barebox: Add possibility to build also barebox xloader (MLO). > > Marek Belisko > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/207943 > > No feedback. I would tend to reject these two patches, unless someone > still pops up and wants to adopt these patches. They introduce a > second build of barebox: one for the standard barebox, and another one > for the xloader. In fact, the only real difference seems to be that > both builds use a separate config file. In fact, there is a real problem that these patches from Marek are trying to solve. Contrary to U-Boot with which a single build produces both the first stage bootloader (SPL) and the second stage bootloader (which is compatible with how Buildroot builds U-Boot), Barebox needs two completely separate builds in this case. This means that currently, Buildroot is unable, for some platforms, to generate both the first stage and the second stage Barebox bootloaders. Unfortunately, I don't really see a very clean solution to this problem. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com