From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:11:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 0/7] Support building a second Barebox config (incl. BBB) In-Reply-To: <20160423130141.GB10355@smipidev> References: <1458513351-6556-1-git-send-email-pieter@boesman.nl> <20160419212441.6a0454e9@free-electrons.com> <20160419201733.GA19934@smipidev> <20160420164216.GA26814@smipidev> <20160421132905.7c271814@free-electrons.com> <20160423130141.GB10355@smipidev> Message-ID: <20160423151129.479c5f03@free-electrons.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:01:41 +0200, Pieter Smith wrote: > All that is left is the suggested BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_BUILT_IMAGE_FILE -> > BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_IMAGE_FILE rename and a final master rebase, then I can > post. Good. > Flashing the boot.vfat separately seems to run afoul of such geometry > restrictions. Using genimage to generate a full sdcard.img however works well > on the BBB. I therefore did not spend more time on the issue because it works > now. Do you see any need to dig deeper, or can the patch be merged based on a > working sdcard.img? As long as the sdcard.img is working, that's fine. However, I'm still unsure we will want to merge a defconfig whose only difference compared to the other beablebone defconfig is that it uses Barebox. I certainly want to merge the rest of your series, since we do want to support the use case of people using Barebox on AM335x platforms, or other platforms that have a two-stage boot process. But I'm not sure about the defconfig. Peter, what's your opinion on this? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com