From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:53:49 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] configs: at91sam9x5ek: add development rootfs In-Reply-To: <20161104131408.5wdirj3htguaecx4@rfolt0960.corp.atmel.com> References: <20161103140841.28789-1-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <20161104114840.0810be25@free-electrons.com> <20161104131408.5wdirj3htguaecx4@rfolt0960.corp.atmel.com> Message-ID: <20161104145349.685e7bc3@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 Fri, 4 Nov 2016 14:14:08 +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > > That's a lot of configurations for a single board. Can we rationalize a > > bit, and chose one configuration only (either NAND or MMC), for which > > we have the minimal and dev configurations? > > I have in mind, but maybe I am wrong since the conversion is not recent, > you told me having several defconfigs for the same board won't be an issue. > The concern was more about having a dev_defconfig. Well, the issue is the overall multiplication of defconfigs, so both the fact that you have separate defconfigs for MMC and NAND, and the fact that you want to have those "dev_defconfig" contribute to the multiplication of defconfigs. > Without a defconfig targetted to NAND or MMC, the customer will have to > recompile the at91bootstrap and u-boot, this is something we would like > to avoid. I think u-boot case could be handled because the difference is > mainly about environment variables. Concerning at91bootstrap, it is more > complex. If you have any suggestion to handle this case and so reducing > the number of defconfig variants, I would be happy. Is it possible to have a single at91bootstrap for both the NAND and MMC scenarios? I guess you can decide depending on the boot source whether you should load u-boot from NAND or from MMC. However, this means you need to have both the NAND code and MMC code compiled in the same at91bootstrap image. Maybe this makes the at91bootstrap image too big? I'm not sure what are the constraints of the ROM code in terms of first stage bootloader size on this SoC. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com