From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot: introduce at91bootstrap4
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:03:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210426220343.003df308@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210423070822.1351638-1-eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
Hello Eugen,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:08:22 +0300
Eugen Hristev via buildroot <buildroot@busybox.net> wrote:
> Introduce new bootloader package for the next generation
> of at91bootstrap, at91bootstrap4
>
> AT91Bootstrap4 only supports devices: sam9x60, sama5d2, sama5d3,
> sama5d4, sama7g5.
>
> Based on at91bootstrap3 recipes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
Why would we need a new package for this? It still like just a new
version of at91bootstrap. I just had a look a the differences between
at91bootstrap3/ and at91bootstrap4/ and here are the only meaningful
differences:
+ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_NEEDS_PYTHON3),y)
+AT91BOOTSTRAP3_DEPENDENCIES += host-python3
+endif
-AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = Atmel License
+AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = Microchip License
(this one perhaps applies to at91bootstrap3 as well, in fact)
define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_IMAGES_CMDS
- cp $(@D)/binaries/*.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)
+ cp $(@D)/build/binaries/*.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)
endef
So, shouldn't we instead have a single package covering both? Perhaps
with a sub-option to select "latest 3.x version" and "latest 4.x
version" ?
I know it would be annoying for this package to be named
"at91boostrap3". Perhaps we should, for once, do a bit of renaming
dance and change at91bootstrap to at91bootstrap1 or at91bootstrap-old,
and keep "at91bootstrap" for the "new" 3.x/4.x version? It is not great
in terms of backward compatibility for old configs, though.
(Side note: I find it somewhat annoying that such vendor-provided
solutions tend to drop support for older platforms... It seems that
open-source communities do a better job at maintaining long-term
support for older platforms. What would you say if you had to use a
decade old Buildroot or Yocto to build a system for an AT91SAM9263
processor ?)
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-26 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-23 7:08 [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot: introduce at91bootstrap4 Eugen Hristev
2021-04-26 20:03 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2021-04-27 6:07 ` Eugen.Hristev at microchip.com
2021-04-27 6:58 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2021-04-27 15:20 ` Nicolas Ferre
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210426220343.003df308@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox