Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2676 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:03:17AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:55:44PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:15:12PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
> > > > the U-Boot example.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > > index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
> > > > --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > > @@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
> > > >  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
> > > >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
> > > >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
> > > > -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > > > +
> > > > +	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
> > > > +	# of the generic one
> > > > +	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
> > > > +		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > > 
> > > I don't get it - if it's expected that a .bbappend will be adding a more 
> > > specific version of fw_env.config, why that .bbappend can't simply install 
> > > it with do_install_append()?
> > 
> > Well, this is a lot more user friendly, and it's quite likely that if a
> > platform intends to ship u-boot-fw-utils they intend to provide a
> > functional one as well.  It would be a best-practices to provide one
> > that works for a machine.conf that supports U-Boot, even (and has env
> > stored somewhere, I mean it even supports env as a file).
> 
> Why don't we go all the way there? If we say machine.conf is meant to define a 
> machine-specific env config, let's do it generically.
> 
> What I'm arguing against here is some partial solution - modifying the global 
> recipe in oe-core, but still require .bbappend to provide a file. It's should 
> either be "do everything in .bbappend, like we all do now" or "do everything 
> in main oe-core recipe and let machine.conf define it".

OK, we should do it globally with a ??= of the in-tree example only?  Or
just let u-boot-fw-utils fail to build?

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]