[U-Boot-Users] Testing todays u-boot-fdt

[Jerry Van Baren <vanbaren@cideas.com>]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <4628F431.1020901@smiths-aerospace.com> you wrote:
>> At this point I'm reluctant to do this.  We've basically forked libfdt 
> 
> I perfectly understand your reluctance. It's ugly, and a poor  worka-
> round  for  a  problem that should besolved differently (i. e. by not
> compiling unneeded files at all).
> 
> If you want to do it  right,  it  comes  down  to  a  rework  of  the
> configuration  and  build system. As much as I would like to see work
> being done on this, as much I am also aware that we  have  even  more
> urgent tasks to solve at the moment (like getting the delays in patch
> processing down).
> 
>> Adding the above to all of the files makes it that much more u-boot 
>> specific which will make it that much more difficult to unfork.  On the 
>> other hand, it is "only" three lines per file.
>>
>> Anyone care to weigh in on the issue?  wd?
> 
> It's just 6 files, and the changes are trivial to  do  and  to  undo.
> Since Wolfgang G. already spent the effort to implement it, I suggect
> to add this. If we want to get rid of this later, a simple "patch -R"
> will probably be all that's needed.
> 
> Best regards,
> Wolfgang Denk

Hi Wolfgang,

...and there's the irony.  With it as a library included by BOARDLIBS in
the board config file, it is only compiled if it is called for in the
board's config.mk.

It seems like it would be overall a win to have more of a real library
approach.  I have not gone down that path hardly at all, however, and it
is likely to have briers that I'm not aware of.  It also would take
time.  :-/

Having said that, I don't have any real issue in applying wg's patch.
It isn't a big deal and will match the rest of u-boot methodology.  At
the end of the day, it is a lot easier than converting everything to
true libraries. ;-]

Best regards,
gvb