From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 23:42:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] ti-sgx-*: bump from SDK 02.00 to SDK 04.00 In-Reply-To: References: <1527175458-16091-1-git-send-email-tolvupostur@gmail.com> <5cc76bb8-f92b-ab5d-71bf-c41c0e96930c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20180529234243.699648ec@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Mon, 28 May 2018 14:20:44 +0200, Einar J?n wrote: > > I'm not sure if we must bump all packages related to the TI SDK or bump all > > packages one by one to ease the review. > > I did this in a single commit since any split (except a standalone > ti-sgx-libgbm) would be a commit with a broken build. The places I?ve > worked for for the last 5 years hate those. We definitely want a bisectable patch series, where everything works between each commit. > > Also, BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_KM_AM4430 and BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_KM_AM5430 > > symbols are > > removed. It must be handled in Config.in.legacy. > > > True. I didn?t think of that since none of the defconfigs use it. I can see > that now there is a legacy patch for the _KM addition. > Also, the new _KM addition to these keywords makes these parameters a bit > weird, because it is used in both ti-sgx-km and ti-sgx-um. I don't see where those renamed symbols are used in ti-sgx-um. The symbols that have been renamed are: BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_AM335X BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_AM437X BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_AM4430 BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_AM5430 > > Why S80ti-sgx is removed ? > > > > Because it is both unneeded and obsolete. > The current repo of ti-sgx-um has 3 subfolders, one for each > BR2_PACKAGE_TI_SGX_KM_AMxxx option. Each one has a sysV init file (called > rc-???) that is very different from the one I deleted. > Now I simply rename rc-??? to S80ti-sgx in the post-hook that previously > copied it from package/ti-sgx-um. Is the init script provided by upstream reasonably compatible with Buildroot requirements (it should work with Busybox, etc.) ? We very often have our own init scripts to make sure they are compatible with Buildroot-generated systems. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com