From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pieter Smith Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:52:29 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 4/5] barebox: support 2nd config build In-Reply-To: <20160424175803.72e59938@free-electrons.com> References: <20160424175803.72e59938@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160424165229.GA11148@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 Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 05:58:03PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:18:46 +0200, Pieter Smith wrote: > > > boot/barebox/Config.in | 2 + > > boot/barebox/barebox-2/Config.in | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > boot/barebox/barebox-2/barebox-2.hash | 1 + > > boot/barebox/barebox-2/barebox-2.mk | 9 +++++ > > boot/barebox/barebox.mk | 3 ++ > > Regarding this one, I am not sure, there are two things that bother me > a bit: > > - The name "barebox-2", which I find a bit weird. What about > "barebox-aux" or something like that, as opposed to "barebox-main" ? > > - The organization of the folders. Having the barebox "infra" + the > main barebox package both defined in boot/barebox/barebox.mk seems > weird. Ideally, I would have preferred something like: > > boot/barebox/barebox.mk <-- common infrastructure > boot/barebox/barebox-main/ <-- the main Barebox > boot/barebox/barebox-aux/ <-- the auxiliary Barebox I had it set up this way, but changed it due to some of the review feedback that Arnout provided. > Of course, some tricks will be needed to make the barebox-main/ > package behave properly when its options will still be named > BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_ and not BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_MAIN_. > Alternatively, if that really doesn't work, what about: > > boot/barebox/barebox.mk <-- common infrastructure > boot/barebox/barebox/ <-- the main Barebox > boot/barebox/barebox-aux/ <-- the auxiliary Barebox This approach seems reasonable. I will set it up this way. I will also rename all BAREBOX_2 KConfig options to BAREBOX_AUX. Is this acceptable? > I've applied the first three patches of the series to ease your work, > but I'd like to see if we can get something a bit better for this > patch. I know Arnout has done a lot of review, so don't hesitate to let > me know if all this has already been discussed and why the current > organization has been chosen compared to something more similar to my > proposal. I don't think the organization was changed based on concrete arguments. Arnout just liked it more this way. I do however like your 2nd proposed organization more. [snip] - Pieter