[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/4] configs: at91sam9x5ek: add development rootfs

Ludovic Desroches ludovic.desroches at atmel.com
Fri Nov 4 13:14:08 UTC 2016


On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:48:40AM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:08:38 +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> > Add development rootfs based on linux4sam_5.4 for at91sam9x5ek for both
> > NAND flash and SD card.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches at atmel.com>
> > ---
> >  board/atmel/at91sam9x5ek_mmc/genimage.cfg  |  34 ++++++++++
> >  board/atmel/at91sam9x5ek_mmc/post-image.sh |  20 ++++++
> >  configs/at91sam9x5ek_dev_defconfig         |  99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  configs/at91sam9x5ek_mmc_dev_defconfig     | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> So after this patch, we would have:
> 
>   at91sam9x5ek_defconfig
>   at91sam9x5ek_dev_defconfig
>   at91sam9x5ek_mmc_dev_defconfig
> 
> But no minimal MMC configuration.
> 
> That's a lot of configurations for a single board. Can we rationalize a
> bit, and chose one configuration only (either NAND or MMC), for which
> we have the minimal and dev configurations?
> 

I have in mind, but maybe I am wrong since the conversion is not recent,
you told me having several defconfigs for the same board  won't be an issue.
The concern was more about having a dev_defconfig.

Without a defconfig targetted to NAND or MMC, the customer will have to
recompile the at91bootstrap and u-boot, this is something we would like
to avoid. I think u-boot case could be handled because the difference is
mainly about environment variables. Concerning at91bootstrap, it is more
complex. If you have any suggestion to handle this case and so reducing
the number of defconfig variants, I would be happy.


Thanks

Ludovic

> Thanks,
> 
> Thomas
> -- 
> Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> http://free-electrons.com


More information about the buildroot mailing list