[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Alexey Brodkin]

Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires
Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default
build system which matches U-Boot version requirements.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
---
 boot/uboot/Config.in | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/boot/uboot/Config.in b/boot/uboot/Config.in
index 8215912339ba..2d3f189a548a 100644
--- a/boot/uboot/Config.in
+++ b/boot/uboot/Config.in
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ config BR2_TARGET_UBOOT
 if BR2_TARGET_UBOOT
 choice
 	prompt "Build system"
-	default BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY
+	default BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG
 
 config BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY
 	bool "Legacy"
-- 
2.7.5

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:14:20 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires
> Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default
> build system which matches U-Boot version requirements.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>

This will break all defconfigs of people that still use older U-Boot
versions. So I'm not sure if/when we want to do it.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Алексей Бродкин]

Hi Thomas,

2017-10-21 19:33 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni <
thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>:

> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:14:20 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires
> > Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default
> > build system which matches U-Boot version requirements.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
>
> This will break all defconfigs of people that still use older U-Boot
> versions. So I'm not sure if/when we want to do it.


Ok that makes sense.
Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG and
one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96.

So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail.

-Alexey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20171021/65652ece/attachment.html>

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:44:35 +0300, ??????? ??????? wrote:

> Ok that makes sense.
> Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG and
> one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96.
> 
> So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail.

Well the defconfigs that are in Buildroot we could easily fix, so it's
not really the issue. The issue is more with all the defconfigs that
people/companies have locally for their own projects.

That being said, it's true at some point, it would make sense to switch
over to Kconfig as the default. The question is when to do that without
breaking things for too many users.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Алексей Бродкин]

Hi Thomas,

2017-10-21 19:56 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni <
thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>:

> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:44:35 +0300, ??????? ??????? wrote:
>
> > Ok that makes sense.
> > Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG and
> > one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96.
> >
> > So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail.
>
> Well the defconfigs that are in Buildroot we could easily fix, so it's
> not really the issue. The issue is more with all the defconfigs that
> people/companies have locally for their own projects.
>
> That being said, it's true at some point, it would make sense to switch
> over to Kconfig as the default. The question is when to do that without
> breaking things for too many users.


That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff.
What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother?

-Alexey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20171021/fc0a57d5/attachment.html>

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:12:49 +0300, ??????? ??????? wrote:

> That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff.
> What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother?

Come on, people making real products are never going to upstream their
defconfigs to Buildroot. They are highly specific, potentially
confidential. We wouldn't even accept them in Buildroot.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system

[Алексей Бродкин]

Hi Thomas,

2017-10-21 20:18 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni <
thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>:

> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:12:49 +0300, ??????? ??????? wrote:
>
> > That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff.
> > What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother?
>
> Come on, people making real products are never going to upstream their
> defconfigs to Buildroot. They are highly specific, potentially
> confidential. We wouldn't even accept them in Buildroot.
>

That's all understood but I'm pretty sure they don't follow upstream master
branch and it takes a second to fix that problem if it arises once people
jump onto newer BR release, right?

-Alexey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/buildroot/attachments/20171021/595a6a12/attachment.html>