From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:22:02 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Intel Edison support In-Reply-To: References: <5530275D.90305@mind.be> Message-ID: <5530B49A.4000206@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 17/04/15 00:50, Frank Hunleth wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> >> On 16/04/15 14:33, Frank Hunleth wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have support for the Intel Edison working in Buildroot. It took a while to >>> figure out everything that Intel's Yocto distribution was doing, but after you >>> simplify it down, it doesn't seem so bad. I'd send the patch up for review, but >>> it is dwarfed by two massive patch files on u-boot and the kernel that I had to >>> copy from Intel's Yocto distro [1]. It seems better if BR could download the >>> Yocto distro, extract the patch files, and use them when needed. It also doesn't >>> seem right for BR to have to carry around a couple mega-patches. Is this >>> possible and is there an example somewhere? >>> >>> If you would like to see my current patches for Edison support, they are >>> available here: https://github.com/fhunleth/buildroot-edison. >> >> There is a github upload of the official Edison yocto layer at [2]. You could >> download the relevant patches from there with BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_PATCH. When you >> do that, please make sure that the sha is included in the URL, so [3] and not [4]. > > Thanks. I'll try that for the kernel. > > At the moment, u-boot only supports patch directories, so I can't > download the mega-patch for it. I was going to copy/paste the patch > support from the kernel, but the kernel's patch support looks more > involved than I expected. I'm not missing a generic patch macro > somewhere, am I? The complexity for linux is simply because historically it also supports directories of patches. If you exclude that feature, it's simply: UBOOT_PATCH += $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_PATCHES)) If you do that, we should probably also deprecate the current special handling of BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR. Actually, perhaps we should consider extending the BR2_GLOBAL_PATCH_DIR to support some kind of URL-encoded patches. E.g. *.urlpatch, or dead symlinks to URLs, or something. Sounds like something for Yann to work on :-) Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F