[Buildroot] [PATCH] uboot-tools: Allow users to use uboot's sources
Luca Ceresoli
luca at lucaceresoli.net
Tue Jan 28 10:55:08 UTC 2014
Hi Thomas,
Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> Hi Arnout,
>
> Op 27-jan.-2014 22:28 schreef "Arnout Vandecappelle" <arnout at mind.be
> <mailto:arnout at mind.be>>:
> >
> > On 26/01/14 22:43, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> >>
> >> Going a step ahead, to be more uniform with these packages, you may use
> >> a choice construct to allow choosing between two alternatives.
> >> Example (modified version of the code in barebox.mk
> <http://barebox.mk>):
> >>
> >> choice
> >> prompt "version"
> >> help
> >> Select the specific uboot-tools version you want to use
> >>
> >> config BR2_PACKAGE_UBOOT_TOOLS_LATEST_VERSION
> >> bool "Use a recent upstream version"
> >>
> >> config BR2_PACKAGE_UBOOT_TOOLS_USE_UBOOT_VERSION
> >> bool "Use the same sources of the uboot package"
> >>
> >> endchoice
> >
> >
> > Actually, I don't even see the need to ask the user anything. If we
> are building U-Boot, I don't see why we would ever want to use the
> U-Boot tools from upstream - that just adds a risk of incompatibility
> between the two.
> >
> > So I would propose to remove the
> BR2_PACKAGE_UBOOT_TOOLS_UBOOT_SOURCE option, and instead make it
> conditional on BR2_TARGET_UBOOT.
>
> I don't agree here. Real life example: we are using vendor-provided
> uboot, and want to set an env-image in our flash devices' factory image.
> While this version of uboot clearly supports handling the env at a
> specified location, it does not (yet) provide the mkenvimage tool.
> In this case, we actually want a more recent uboot tools package that
> does have mkenvimage. My conclusion is thus that we should provide the
> choice.
And here's the counterexample! So, yes, I agree we should provide a
choice.
--
Luca
More information about the buildroot
mailing list