From: Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] Fix Image name not configurable (issue #28).
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:58:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5627458F.4020108@mclink.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55E44D1B.5050207@mclink.it>
Hi,
I received today (!) answer from upstream:
============= see: https://github.com/linux4sam/at91bootstrap/issues/28#issuecomment-149745536 ==============
Hello,
Yes, it is not configurable, making it configurable is more comfortable.
We accepted your advice. Thank you for your support.
Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang
========================================================================================
I thus assume my original (not the more convoluted one I submitted later) patch can be backported.
Please advise about what I should do.
Regards
Mauro Condarelli
Il 31/08/2015 14:48, Mauro Condarelli ha scritto:
> Agreed.
> I will press upstream.
> In the meantime I will live with my local changes.
> I'll keep the list posted on any (eventual) development.
>
> Regards
> Mauro
>
> Il 31/08/2015 10:17, Yann E. MORIN ha scritto:
>> Mauro, Thomas, All,
>>
>> On 2015-08-31 09:32 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly:
>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 18:28:41 +0200, Mauro Condarelli wrote:
>>>> After the previous discussion on IRC I came up with this very different patch which does not touch the upstream package at all (even though I still think allowing user to chose isn't evil).
>>>> Before I try to submit it I would like a comment.
>>>> The aim is to force the booted image name according to requested kernel target if (and only if) user contextually requests the image to be installed.
>>>> Obvious downside is user has no feedback of the change (and I don't know how to provide this feedback).
>>>> Would this be more acceptable?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/boot/at91bootstrap3/at91bootstrap3.mk b/boot/at91bootstrap3/at91bootstrap3.mk
>>>> index fa67ea6..ccb5e95 100644
>>>> --- a/boot/at91bootstrap3/at91bootstrap3.mk
>>>> +++ b/boot/at91bootstrap3/at91bootstrap3.mk
>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,23 @@ define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_IMAGES_CMDS
>>>> cp $(@D)/binaries/*.bin $(BINARIES_DIR)
>>>> endef
>>>> +ifeq ($(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_INSTALL_TARGET),y)
>>>> +define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_FIXUP_CMDS
>>>> + $(if $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_UIMAGE),
>>>> + $(call KCONFIG_SET_OPT,CONFIG_IMAGE_NAME,"uImage",$(@D)/.config))
>>>> + $(if $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_APPENDED_UIMAGE),
>>>> + $(call KCONFIG_SET_OPT,CONFIG_IMAGE_NAME,"uImage",$(@D)/.config))
>>>> + $(if $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_ZIMAGE),
>>>> + $(call KCONFIG_SET_OPT,CONFIG_IMAGE_NAME,"zImage",$(@D)/.config))
>>>> + $(if $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_APPENDED_ZIMAGE),
>>>> + $(call KCONFIG_SET_OPT,CONFIG_IMAGE_NAME,"zImage",$(@D)/.config))
>>>> + $(if $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_VMLINUX),
>>>> + $(call KCONFIG_SET_OPT,CONFIG_IMAGE_NAME,"vmlinux",$(@D)/.config))
>>>> + $(if $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_IMAGE_TARGET_CUSTOM),
>>>> + $(call KCONFIG_SET_OPT,CONFIG_IMAGE_NAME,$(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_IMAGE_NAME),$(@D)/.config))
>>>> +endef
>>>> +endif
>>> I think this is not correct because it assumes you want to boot the
>>> Linux kernel directly from ATBootstrap, while many people usually do
>>> AT91Bootstrap -> another bootloader (U-Boot or Barebox) -> Linux kernel.
>> Besides, this is changing an option that is not user-configurable, so
>> its lifetime in the .config is not guaranteed. I.e. if the buildsystem
>> of at01bootstrap3 would do an "oldconfig" on it, it would get lost
>> (well, at least that's the case on their master branch).
>>
>> Please, get the matter with upstream and see what they think.
>>
>> When upstream has agreed on a "fix", *then* we can see at backporting it
>> until they do a new release.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Yann E. MORIN.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-21 7:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-29 10:07 [Buildroot] [PATCH] trivial patch to fix Image name not appearing in 'make menuconfig' (fixex issue #28) Mauro Condarelli
2015-08-29 10:13 ` Mauro Condarelli
2015-08-29 10:43 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] Fix Image name not configurable (issue #28) Mauro Condarelli
2015-08-29 10:43 ` Mauro Condarelli
2015-08-29 11:59 ` Yann E. MORIN
2015-08-29 16:28 ` Mauro Condarelli
2015-08-31 7:32 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-08-31 8:17 ` Yann E. MORIN
2015-08-31 12:48 ` Mauro Condarelli
2015-10-21 7:58 ` Mauro Condarelli [this message]
2015-10-21 8:20 ` Thomas Petazzoni
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=5627458F.4020108@mclink.it \
--to=mc5686@mclink.it \
--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