From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mauro Condarelli <mc5686@mclink.it>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:58:07 +0200
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] Fix Image name not configurable (issue
 #28).
In-Reply-To: <55E44D1B.5050207@mclink.it>
References: <1440842823-1283-1-git-send-email-mc5686@mclink.it>
 <1440845031-3965-1-git-send-email-mc5686@mclink.it>
 <1440845031-3965-2-git-send-email-mc5686@mclink.it>
 <20150829115935.GC4857@free.fr> <55E1DDB9.6040101@mclink.it>
 <20150831093214.6ae89b8a@free-electrons.com> <20150831081740.GA3596@free.fr>
 <55E44D1B.5050207@mclink.it>
Message-ID: <5627458F.4020108@mclink.it>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

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
>