From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pieter Smith Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:04:07 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 0/7] Support building a second Barebox config (incl. BBB) In-Reply-To: <20160423212646.5e6d8f52@free-electrons.com> References: <20160420164216.GA26814@smipidev> <20160421132905.7c271814@free-electrons.com> <20160423130141.GB10355@smipidev> <20160423151129.479c5f03@free-electrons.com> <20160423165013.10739b58@free-electrons.com> <20160423161844.GA9825@smipidev> <20160423212646.5e6d8f52@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160424080407.GB3082@smipidev> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:26:46PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:18:44 +0200, Pieter Smith wrote: > > > > Well, what you want and what the Buildroot maintainer/core developers > > > want may be different :-) > > > > Yup... If all the world was of one mind, it surely would be a boring place ;-) > > Indeed :) > > > I do not want to try to force the beaglebone_barebox_defconfig. Everybody knows > > that it doesn't work that way. Is there no value in having SOME FORM of > > defconfig to illustrate feature use in buildroot? > > There is a value, but not as a defconfig in configs/ IMO. > Unfortunately, the place/infrastructure where it would have a value > doesn't really exist today. I will post the patch series including the beaglebone_barebox_defconfig. This will at least illustrate usage, even if it only lives in the mailing archives. Should it be required: The buildroot maintainers have my permission to merge only a sub-set of the patch-series. I do not object to this, and I will make it clear in the summary. > > > My opinion is that there is no point is having gazillions of different > > > defconfigs for the same board. Your focus is on Barebox, but then the > > > next developer will want a defconfig for BeagleBone+Qt5, the next one > > > for BeagleBone+Wayland, the next one for BeagleBone+Kodi, the next one > > > for BeagleBone as a toaster controller, etc, etc. As you can see, it's > > > going to be an endless list of unmaintainable defconfigs, so we have to > > > cut the line somewhere. > > > > What? No beaglebone_epilator_defconfig? Pity... ;-) > > beaglebone_toothbrush_defconfig :-) beaglebone_commodore64_emulator_defconfig? > > > It would however be useful in a "testing" framework so that we can > > > validate automatically that the dual Barebox functionality continues to > > > work over time. > > > > Agreed. Where can I stall my shiny BBB barebox "regression test" roadster then? > > My grand plan is to promote something like > https://github.com/tpetazzoni/buildroot-runtime-test in order to > collect test cases (both build-time tests and runtime tests). Promising. I will remember to have a look at it in a few weeks. > Thomas > -- > Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com - Pieter