Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH v9 06/11] board/ti/am62x_sk|am64x_sk: switch to TI SDK v8.6 sources

[Arnout Vandecappelle via buildroot <buildroot@buildroot.org>]

On 25/06/2023 15:54, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> Andreas, All,
> 
> On 2023-06-22 11:02 -0500, Andreas Dannenberg via buildroot spake thusly:
>> Switch the following projects to using the same Git source repos and
>> commit IDs that are used to build the TI SDK v8.6 for AM62x and AM64x
>> devices to establish a baseline for comparable functionality:
>>
>> * TI Linux Kernel v5.10
> 
> So this means going from a 6.3 kernel back to a 5.10 (the current latest
> if 6.3, which is what is used in the defconfigs from the two previous
> patches). That's a bit unfortunate.
> 
> Do you have plans to update to a more recent kernel in the (near)
> future? Can't we keep using 6.3 anyway?

  We don't actually have a clear policy on whether to use upstream or vendor 
kernels for the defconfigs. We have a few boards with both, but IMHO that's not 
a great approach either.

  Personally, I think it makes sense to focus on vendor kernels for the 
defconfigs. Using upstream is generally easy, you just have to find the 
appropriate device tree. But for the vendor kernel, you have to find the 
repository, which branch is "current", and often also make sure you sync up with 
U-Boot and OP-TEE etc. versions. @Andreas don't take this as law, though, it's 
just personal opinion.

  That said, I think for each board we should look at what the vendor kernel 
really brings. If everything, including GPU, is working with the upstream 
kernel, it doesn't make sense to use the vendor kernel. I don't know if that's 
the case in this specific situation.

  Yann, Peter, Romain, Thomas, what do you think?

  Regards,
  Arnout

> 
>> * TI U-Boot v2021.01
>> * ARM Trusted Firmware
>> * OP-TEE
>>
>> For the Linux Kernel this also includes switching the defconfig to a new
>> one that is generated with the ti_config_fragments/defconfig_builder.sh
>> tool that is part of the respective ti-linux-5.10.y repository.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dannenberg <dannenberg@ti.com>
>> ---
>>   .../ti/am62x_sk/ti_sdk_arm64_debug_defconfig  | 1991 +++++++++++++++++
>>   .../am62x_sk/ti_sdk_arm64_release_defconfig   | 1894 ++++++++++++++++
>>   .../ti/am64x_sk/ti_sdk_arm64_debug_defconfig  | 1991 +++++++++++++++++
>>   .../am64x_sk/ti_sdk_arm64_release_defconfig   | 1894 ++++++++++++++++
> 
> Those are really big defconfigs... Why can't we use the defconfig
> anymore?
> 
> Also, for each board, you are providing two defconfigs, one release and
> one debug, but only one is used. We don;t want to carry files that are
> unused, because they are going to bitrot sooner than later.
> 
> Just add the two defconfigs that are needed, one for each board.
> 
> Also, I think it would be preferrable that the files be named
> linux.config (.config even though it is a defconfig, yes), like we do
> for the other boards (there are slight deviations, like adding the
> lernel version, or a 'nommu', but only one is named after the board).
> 
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
> 
> [--SNIP--]
>> diff --git a/configs/am62x_sk_defconfig b/configs/am62x_sk_defconfig
>> index 083720f512..0b196f4cce 100644
>> --- a/configs/am62x_sk_defconfig
>> +++ b/configs/am62x_sk_defconfig
>> @@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
>>   BR2_aarch64=y
>> +BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_LINUX_HEADERS_CUSTOM_5_10=y
> 
> This is out-of-order.
> 
> Either you have manually-edited defconfigs, and then you should provide
> comments in there, like (see existing defconfigs for exampleS):
> 
>      # Linux headers same as kernel, a 5.10 series
>      BR2_PACKAGE_HOST_LINUX_HEADERS_CUSTOM_5_10=y
> 
> or you have a defconfig that is fully auto-gemnerated with
> save-defconfig.
> 
> I prefer the latter, but other maintainers may prefer the former..
> 
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
> 
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot@buildroot.org
https://lists.buildroot.org/mailman/listinfo/buildroot