Re: [PATCH] u-boot: Upgrade to 2018.03 release

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1433 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 08:29:56PM +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:25 PM Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 07:57:18PM +0000, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:53 PM Alexander Kanavin <
> > > alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 04/30/2018 08:25 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > >>>> Isn't it possible to solve your issue in the OE side?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Can we NOT compile DTC alongside U-Boot somehow ? :)
> > > > >>> That'd be the most desired solution IMO.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes please. Can you adjust the recipes and classes in oe-core, and
> > > > >> remove the dtc recipe altogether?
> > > > >
> > > > > Remove dtc recipe ? Not sure I understand what you're implying.
> > >
> > > > If u-boot bundles dtc in its source tree, can we use that, and remove
> > > > the external dtc recipe?
> > >
> > > We shouldn't. The point in use the recipes inside OE-Core is because our
> > > bugfixes, patches and etc are used everywhere. If we use the bundled
> copy
> > > how we'd fix a host issue for example? Duplicate patches?
> 
> > What do you do for the kernel here?
> 
> We use our dtc-native. As we do for all other recipes (but few exceptions)

Then you should also be doing swig-native, if I recall the other parts
of this thread (or the other one?) correctly.

-- 
Tom

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