[U-Boot] simple buildman usage

Simon Glass
2015-07-15T17:50:03Z

Hi Stephen,

On 15 July 2015 at 10:28, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
> On 07/15/2015 09:54 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> On 15 July 2015 at 09:50, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/14/2015 05:33 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:39:01PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/14/2015 04:09 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 02:11:25PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/14/2015 11:56 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've pushed v2015.07 out to the repository and tarballs should exist
>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This sounds a bit like a broken record, but it's true. The Kconfig
>>>>>>>> migration and DM work continue moving along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking over the announcement for v2015.04, I see I said we'd
>>>>>>>> deprecate
>>>>>>>> MAKEALL. So I've applied http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/383960/
>>>>>>>> right after the tag. If buildman isn't working for you and your use
>>>>>>>> case, we really need to talk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The nice thing about MAKEALL was that I could simply grab a source
>>>>>>> tree, and run the following to build in-tree:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CROSS_COMPILE=something ./MAKEALL foo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, with buildman, some complex config file needed to be set up
>>>>>>> to configure the toolchain (and I could never parse the docs to work
>>>>>>> out how to create it in a new checkout), plus it made copies of the
>>>>>>> source tree which takes ages for me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there an equivalently simple way to invoke buildman that doesn't
>>>>>>> require configuration and copying?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For no copying, --in-tree does what you want I think.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. Making that the default would be useful, or providing a buildman
>>>>> wrapper script in the root directory that always passes this option.
>>>>>
>>>>>> For not
>>>>>> configuring a toolchain, there's two ways to go about this. One would
>>>>>> be to do something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/buildman/toolchain.py b/tools/buildman/toolchain.py
>>>>>> index e33e105..bba60d5 100644
>>>>>> --- a/tools/buildman/toolchain.py
>>>>>> +++ b/tools/buildman/toolchain.py
>>>>>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ class Toolchains:
>>>>>> " to your buildman config file %s. See README for
>>>>>> details" %
>>>>>> bsettings.config_fname)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - paths = []
>>>>>> + paths = ['/usr', '/usr/local']
>>>>>> for name, value in toolchains:
>>>>>> if '*' in value:
>>>>>> paths += glob.glob(value)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then any toolchains in /usr and /usr/local would be picked up and
>>>>>> used. Another option would be to add --tool-chain-path DIR and throw
>>>>>> that into the above function. Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that find cross-compilers? IIRC I had to add the full compiler
>>>>> binary name into the config file, not just a /usr search directory,
>>>>> so I don't think the above patch is enough to make it work. What if
>>>>> I want to use a specific cross-compiler and I have 4 different ARM
>>>>> compilers installed in /usr? How would it know which architecture's
>>>>> cross-compiler to use?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, how much are you expecting to Just Work without making a real
>>>> config?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The same way MAKEALL did; by honoring CROSS_COMPILE:-)
>>
>>
>> Do you give it a different CROSS_COMPILE for every arch? Isn't that a
>> pain?
>
>
> No, I almost always only build for ARM. I just very rarely build for
> x86/sandbox, which simply requires not including the CROSS_COMPILE value on
> the command-line. For new shells, I simply cut/paste the command-lines from
> a text file I keep my shell history all saved it, so I find it quite easy.

OK. Do you think Tom's idea works for you? Perhaps reply on that
thread. I'm willing to work up a patch if yes as I assume your use
case is not that unusual.

Regards,
Simon