[Buildroot] [PATCH 1/1] package/linuxptp: remove hardcoded interface from config to args
olteanv at gmail.com
Sat Jun 27 18:51:39 UTC 2020
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 00:20, Michael Walle <michael at walle.cc> wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> Am 2020-06-18 19:00, schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 19:09, Michael Walle <michael at walle.cc> wrote:
> >> Am 2020-06-16 21:07, schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> >> > I've thought many times about changing the default ptp4l config file
> >> > shipped by buildroot (due to that inconvenient eth0), but at the end
> >> > of the day, buildroot is meant to be customized for each and every
> >> > embedded target (which makes the comparison to debian not so
> >> > relevant). So providing a default config doesn't make a lot of sense
> >> > in the first place, except for those users who have never used it
> >> > before, and have no idea where to start.
> >> _BUT_ a customized config file which fits one board doesn't make
> >> sense either.
> > For that board, sure it makes sense. For the rest, not so much.
> Then this config should go into the board specific fs overlay.
> >> So buildroot should really stick to the default ones
> >> provided by the upstream. Like every other distro does. Esp if it
> >> "just works".
> > And it does. To my knowledge, linuxptp.cfg from buildroot is
> > default.cfg from upstream, just with this extra [eth0] at the end.
> It is not even close:
> >> > But apart from that, as you
> >> > said, interface names are going to differ, and let me add another one:
> >> > PTP profiles are going to differ (automotive, AVB, telecom, etc):
> >> > https://github.com/richardcochran/linuxptp/tree/master/configs
> >> > So what do you do, ship them all? That's a little bit _not_ in the
> >> > spirit of buildroot where you are only supposed to install what the
> >> > end appliance will use.
> >> > So I guess I'm back to Thomas's question: what do you win if you move
> >> > "eth0" from /etc/linuxptp.cfg to /etc/defaults/ptp4l?
> >> Having an empty [<interface>] section in linuxptp.cfg is strange.
> > Why is it strange to have no interfaces defined in linuxptp.cfg?
> > That's how upstream configurations are shipped.
> I mean an empty [eth0] section, which is the equivalent of having
> the "-i" command line option.
> >> Why
> >> are there the "-i" options for the binary? Because you can then have
> >> one config which can be used for multiple instances on different
> >> interfaces.
> > Yes.
> >> > The default
> >> > configuration will remain just as useless for somebody who needs to
> >> > customize ptp4l for a particular set of ports and PTP profile.
> >> Right, but as a starting point it is sufficient.
> > And what do you gain if you move that "eth0" to just some other file?
> the default.cfg contains all variables which can changed by the user, so
> you won't need to look at the manual page to figure out the different
> options. the buildroot one, doesn't; I don't know who and why choose
> these options.
> > Isn't the current starting point just as sufficient?
> No, its a board specific configuration, ie. slave-only enabled etc.
> I give you another example: lets say I want to provide sensible defaults
> to my board supported in buildroot. As you already pointed out, it is
> intended behavior to change the configuration for a final board config.
> But the board in buildroot should also contain a good template. So right
> now, I'd have to make an own copy of the and put it into the overlay.
> Which means duplicating the configuration, even worse, I'd have to
> track upstream default config. Instead, a package could copy the default
> config from the tarball/git repository. This doesn't only apply to
> linuxptp, but IMHO for all packages which provide a sane upstream
> default config.
> If I would put port 2222 into dropbear config installed by buildroot,
> I doubt anyone would argue in favor of that.
> To go a bit further, I'd like to see that the manual suggests that
> any package should install the upstream default config (if there
> is a _sensible_ one). Even if that is just because there will never
> be an agreement on what the config installed by buildroot should look
> >> > The furthest I got was to have some advanced Kconfig-based system
> >> > where you could specify in the defconfig which profile you want, and
> >> > on which ports, and the build system would automatically make things
> >> > happen. Sadly it was so complicated that I just tossed it away. Note
> >> > that some hardware also needs hardware-specific settings (such as
> >> > increasing the tx_timestamp_timeout), which makes Thomas's suggestion
> >> > of providing rootfs overlays the only viable path in the general case.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > -Vladimir
> > Thanks,
> > -Vladimir
I agree it would make more sense for buildroot to ship default.cfg or
something equivalent to it (no configuration file).
More information about the buildroot