From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:03:43 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] boot: introduce at91bootstrap4 In-Reply-To: <20210423070822.1351638-1-eugen.hristev@microchip.com> References: <20210423070822.1351638-1-eugen.hristev@microchip.com> Message-ID: <20210426220343.003df308@windsurf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello Eugen, On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:08:22 +0300 Eugen Hristev via buildroot 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 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