From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:59:52 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 4/7] barebox: introduce barebox-package function In-Reply-To: <1458513351-6556-5-git-send-email-pieter@boesman.nl> References: <1458513351-6556-1-git-send-email-pieter@boesman.nl> <1458513351-6556-5-git-send-email-pieter@boesman.nl> Message-ID: <5702F1E8.90309@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 03/20/16 23:35, Pieter Smith wrote: > No functional changes: Introduces a barebox-package function towards re-use by > a 2nd config build. > > Because the function is meant to be called from within a $(eval), all instances > of '$' has to be escaped. I.e. rename '$' -> '$$'. > > Signed-off-by: Pieter Smith Reviewed-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) Checked that it is exactly the same except for the '$' -> '$$' replacement. However, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to hoist the parts that are really common (or only for barebox-1) out of the function. In particular, I'm thinking of: - everything concerning BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_BAREBOXENV, because that option doesn't exist for barebox-2 and it can be cleanly separated; - the definition of BAREBOX_APPLY_CUSTOM_PATCHES, because there is only a single BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR; - the definition of BAREBOX_ARCH and BAREBOX_MAKE_FLAGS, because they are not used by kconfig-package but only internally. I'm not entirely sure if it is better that way. Pieter, I leave it up to you to decide. 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: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF