From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:21:25 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] What's the buildroot attitude to u-boot building? In-Reply-To: <87k3cknbyk.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> References: <20140222001309.143e02f7@skate> <201402241433.49892.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> <87k3cknbyk.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20140318062125.772bd2e8@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Peter Korsgaard, On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:37:07 +0100, Peter Korsgaard wrote: > >> While I don't find it particularly pretty, I kind of fail to see what > >> troubles you think it could cause. Could you give more details about > >> this? > > > I have used buildroot in the past to generate u-boot + MLO and have just > > ignored these special options, using my u-boot config instead. > > > Now I am looking at adding some configs, or working with existing ones, to add > > SOCFPGA handling. so I wanted to understand why things were done as they are > > so that I could do a better job. > > I've also never used them (and disliked when they got added). Perhaps > the time has come to deprecate those options? > > Anybody disagrees? I agree that those options are weird. I don't think we should be poking into the U-Boot header files. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com