Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 18/18] board/lx2160ardb: new platform

From: Thomas Petazzoni via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>
To: Vincent Jardin <vjardin@free.fr>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
	Ioana Ciornei <ciorneiioana@gmail.com>,
	Brandon Maier <Brandon.Maier@collins.com>,
	Julien Olivain <ju.o@free.fr>,
	buildroot@buildroot.org, Romain Naour <romain.naour@smile.fr>,
	Akhilesh Nema <nemaakhilesh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2 18/18] board/lx2160ardb: new platform
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 23:48:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250422234834.0f36b6a9@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <lsefn7ciqjh4vcjresnslswex7o4y67hyewwv324gqkmhaw5tx@s43mnee24je2>

Hello Vincent,

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:11:41 +0200
Vincent Jardin <vjardin@free.fr> wrote:

> Of course, I do understand NXP willingness to control theirs, but here
> it is about Buildroot, not NXP's Flexbuild. I'd like to read the views
> of Buildroot's maintainers since I am a novice with Buildroot.

Of course, we do care about upstream, but we also want defconfigs that
are "useful", which sometimes means we have to use vendor trees. For
example all the configs/freescale_* configurations use the NXP vendor
trees. On the other hand, the configs/imx_* configurations, sometimes
for the same platforms, use upstream trees.

In another case, for STM32MP platforms, Buildroot has defconfigs that
use upstream trees, and a separate BR2_EXTERNAL
(https://github.com/bootlin/buildroot-external-st) has defconfigs that
use ST vendor trees, because some people want to use what's supported
by the vendor, to get vendor's support.

So I'm not shocked by Vlad's defconfig using NXP's vendor tree overall.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot