[Buildroot] [PATCH 0 of 3] Add/rename *-update-config targets

[Buildroot] [PATCH 0 of 3] Add/rename *-update-config targets

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

---
 linux/linux.mk             |  11 +++++++++++
 package/busybox/busybox.mk |   2 +-
 toolchain/uClibc/uclibc.mk |   2 +-
 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 3] linux: add linux-update-config and linux-update-defconfig targets

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

In analogy to build targets uclibc-update and busybox-update, add
extra targets to copy the current configuration to the custom
configuration file set in buildroot. These targets facilitate the
work of developers adding support for a specific board.

linux-update-config copies .config directly.
linux-update-defconfig first creates a defconfig and copies that.

Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

---
v2: add defconfig target and rename.

 linux/linux.mk |  11 +++++++++++
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/linux/linux.mk b/linux/linux.mk
--- a/linux/linux.mk
+++ b/linux/linux.mk
@@ -190,6 +190,17 @@
 	$(MAKE) $(LINUX_MAKE_FLAGS) -C $(LINUX_DIR) \
 		$(subst linux-,,$(subst linux26-,,$@))
 
+ifeq ($(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_USE_CUSTOM_CONFIG),y)
+linux-update-config linux26-update-config: $(LINUX_DIR)/.config
+	cp -f $(LINUX_DIR)/.config $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE)
+
+linux-update-defconfig linux26-update-defconfig: linux-savedefconfig
+	cp -f $(LINUX_DIR)/defconfig $(BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE)
+else
+linux-update-config linux26-update-config: ;
+linux-update-defconfig linux26-update-defconfig: ;
+endif
+
 # Support for rebuilding the kernel after the initramfs file list has
 # been generated in $(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.initramfs.
 $(LINUX_DIR)/.stamp_initramfs_rebuilt: $(LINUX_DIR)/.stamp_target_installed $(LINUX_DIR)/.stamp_images_installed $(BINARIES_DIR)/rootfs.initramfs

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2 of 3] busybox: rename busybox-update to busybox-update-config

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

The original name busybox-update is confusing as it only updates a
configuration file.

Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

---
 package/busybox/busybox.mk |  2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/package/busybox/busybox.mk b/package/busybox/busybox.mk
--- a/package/busybox/busybox.mk
+++ b/package/busybox/busybox.mk
@@ -184,5 +184,5 @@
 	rm -f $(BUSYBOX_DIR)/.stamp_built
 	rm -f $(BUSYBOX_DIR)/.stamp_target_installed
 
-busybox-update:
+busybox-update-config:
 	cp -f $(BUSYBOX_BUILD_CONFIG) $(BUSYBOX_CONFIG_FILE)

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3 of 3] uclibc: rename uclibc-update to uclibc-update-config

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

The original name uclibc-update is confusing as it only updates a
configuration file.

Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

---
 toolchain/uClibc/uclibc.mk |  2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/toolchain/uClibc/uclibc.mk b/toolchain/uClibc/uclibc.mk
--- a/toolchain/uClibc/uclibc.mk
+++ b/toolchain/uClibc/uclibc.mk
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@
 
 uclibc-oldconfig: $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.oldconfig
 
-uclibc-update: uclibc-config
+uclibc-update-config: uclibc-config
 	cp -f $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.config $(UCLIBC_CONFIG_FILE)
 
 uclibc-configured: gcc_initial kernel-headers $(UCLIBC_DIR)/.configured

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 3] linux: add linux-update-config and linux-update-defconfig targets

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:21:09 +0200,
Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> a ?crit :

> In analogy to build targets uclibc-update and busybox-update, add
> extra targets to copy the current configuration to the custom
> configuration file set in buildroot. These targets facilitate the
> work of developers adding support for a specific board.
> 
> linux-update-config copies .config directly.
> linux-update-defconfig first creates a defconfig and copies that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>

As further improvements, I am wondering :

 * Whether linux-update-*config should display a warning/error when
   BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE is not used, instead of being
   silent.

 * Whether this configuration update shouldn't be done automatically
   when one does "make linux-menuconfig" or "make linux-xconfig".
   People have often found strange to loose their configuration changes
   in Linux/Busybox/uClibc when they do a make clean.

But regardless of this discussion, I think your patch should be merged
as is.

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 2 of 3] busybox: rename busybox-update to busybox-update-config

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:21:10 +0200,
Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> a ?crit :

> The original name busybox-update is confusing as it only updates a
> configuration file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 3 of 3] uclibc: rename uclibc-update to uclibc-update-config

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:21:11 +0200,
Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> a ?crit :

> The original name uclibc-update is confusing as it only updates a
> configuration file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 3] linux: add linux-update-config and linux-update-defconfig targets

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Le Tue, 27 Sep 2011 21:21:09 +0200,
> Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> a ?crit :
>
>> In analogy to build targets uclibc-update and busybox-update, add
>> extra targets to copy the current configuration to the custom
>> configuration file set in buildroot. These targets facilitate the
>> work of developers adding support for a specific board.
>>
>> linux-update-config copies .config directly.
>> linux-update-defconfig first creates a defconfig and copies that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire@gmail.com>
>
> Acked-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
>
> As further improvements, I am wondering :
>
> ?* Whether linux-update-*config should display a warning/error when
> ? BR2_LINUX_KERNEL_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE is not used, instead of being
> ? silent.

Ok, that's fine.

>
> ?* Whether this configuration update shouldn't be done automatically
> ? when one does "make linux-menuconfig" or "make linux-xconfig".
> ? People have often found strange to loose their configuration changes
> ? in Linux/Busybox/uClibc when they do a make clean.

Such a feature would be good indeed. But, some remarks:
* hooking it to menuconfig/xconfig wouldn't cover the case where the
.config is manually changed. This different behavior may be confusing
as well.
What if we execute the automatic saving just before the build step?
This of course requires to start building; you cannot just change the
config and hope that it is copied automatically. In that last case, a
manual linux-update-config would be necessary.
Is this acceptable?

* previously you raised the point of busybox-update / uclibc-update
potentially overwriting the standard buildroot files. If we do not
want this and we want automatic saving of custom configs, then we need
to be able to differentiate between custom and default configuration
files.
On the other hand, if there are users that purposefully put their
project's configuration in the default files (overwriting them), then
they would not be able to benefit from the automatic saving, and
possibly not from -update-config either. But I'm not sure if we ought
to support such practice...

>
> But regardless of this discussion, I think your patch should be merged
> as is.

Thanks for your ack, also on the other patches.

We'll implement the outcome of the newly raised discussion in a
separate patch then...

~Thomas

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 3] linux: add linux-update-config and linux-update-defconfig targets

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:08:12 +0200,
Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> a ?crit :

> > ?* Whether this configuration update shouldn't be done automatically
> > ? when one does "make linux-menuconfig" or "make linux-xconfig".
> > ? People have often found strange to loose their configuration changes
> > ? in Linux/Busybox/uClibc when they do a make clean.
> 
> Such a feature would be good indeed. But, some remarks:
> * hooking it to menuconfig/xconfig wouldn't cover the case where the
> .config is manually changed. This different behavior may be confusing
> as well.

Correct, even though manually changing the .config is a bit of a corner
case.

> What if we execute the automatic saving just before the build step?
> This of course requires to start building; you cannot just change the
> config and hope that it is copied automatically. In that last case, a
> manual linux-update-config would be necessary.
> Is this acceptable?

Yes, sounds good.

> * previously you raised the point of busybox-update / uclibc-update
> potentially overwriting the standard buildroot files. If we do not
> want this and we want automatic saving of custom configs, then we need
> to be able to differentiate between custom and default configuration
> files.
> On the other hand, if there are users that purposefully put their
> project's configuration in the default files (overwriting them), then
> they would not be able to benefit from the automatic saving, and
> possibly not from -update-config either. But I'm not sure if we ought
> to support such practice...

Maybe we can change a bit the selection of the Busybox/uClibc
configuration file. We could do something like:

 [X] Use default Busybox configuration file

in which case Busybox would use the default configuration file
integrated in Buildroot.

If this option is disabled:

 [ ] Use default Busybox configuration file
 (/some/path/busybox.config) Path to Busybox config file

then Buildroot uses the specified configuration file.

With this change, busybox-config-update would output an error if the
default config file is used and would work properly if a specific
config file is given.

What do you think?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] [PATCH 1 of 3] linux: add linux-update-config and linux-update-defconfig targets

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:56 PM, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Le Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:08:12 +0200,
> Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot@gmail.com> a ?crit :
>
>> > ?* Whether this configuration update shouldn't be done automatically
>> > ? when one does "make linux-menuconfig" or "make linux-xconfig".
>> > ? People have often found strange to loose their configuration changes
>> > ? in Linux/Busybox/uClibc when they do a make clean.
>>
>> Such a feature would be good indeed. But, some remarks:
>> * hooking it to menuconfig/xconfig wouldn't cover the case where the
>> .config is manually changed. This different behavior may be confusing
>> as well.
>
> Correct, even though manually changing the .config is a bit of a corner
> case.
>
>> What if we execute the automatic saving just before the build step?
>> This of course requires to start building; you cannot just change the
>> config and hope that it is copied automatically. In that last case, a
>> manual linux-update-config would be necessary.
>> Is this acceptable?
>
> Yes, sounds good.
>
>> * previously you raised the point of busybox-update / uclibc-update
>> potentially overwriting the standard buildroot files. If we do not
>> want this and we want automatic saving of custom configs, then we need
>> to be able to differentiate between custom and default configuration
>> files.
>> On the other hand, if there are users that purposefully put their
>> project's configuration in the default files (overwriting them), then
>> they would not be able to benefit from the automatic saving, and
>> possibly not from -update-config either. But I'm not sure if we ought
>> to support such practice...
>
> Maybe we can change a bit the selection of the Busybox/uClibc
> configuration file. We could do something like:
>
> ?[X] Use default Busybox configuration file
>
> in which case Busybox would use the default configuration file
> integrated in Buildroot.
>
> If this option is disabled:
>
> ?[ ] Use default Busybox configuration file
> ?(/some/path/busybox.config) Path to Busybox config file
>
> then Buildroot uses the specified configuration file.
>
> With this change, busybox-config-update would output an error if the
> default config file is used and would work properly if a specific
> config file is given.
>
> What do you think?
>

Sounds good to me!
I'm currently a bit busy with switching toolchains, so this will be
somewhat delayed. (Unless you have spare time, in which case you are
free to jump in)

Thanks,
Thomas