[Buildroot] uboot-tools and uboot being separate
arnout at mind.be
Wed Feb 13 22:57:03 UTC 2013
On 13/02/13 21:20, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Dimitrios Siganos,
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:22:54 +0000, Dimitrios Siganos wrote:
>> I have a query regarding uboot and uboot-tools. Currently they are
>> separate packages.
>> However, if I am building both the uboot bootloader and the uboot tools
>> would it not be reasonable to expect to use the same sources for
>> compiling both? At the moment, I am in a situation where I am building
>> uboot with one set of files and uboot-tools (e.g. fw_printenv) with another.
>> Is the recommended solution to point both uboot and uboot-tools to the
>> same package version and apply the same patches to both? And have two
>> parallel builds (uboot, uboot-tools) that should be identical?
I've had the same issue once: a patch to add some functionality to
mkimage that I needed both on the host and on the target.
> No. You don't have to have identical uboot-tools and uboot. Basically
> uboot-tools provide one tool to create U-Boot images (mkimage) and
> tools to manipulate the U-Boot environment from Linux (fw_printenv,
> fw_setenv). Those tools are backward compatible, and so you can
> perfectly use the tools from U-Boot 2010.x with a running U-Boot 2012.x
> or 2013.x.
Unless some feature has been added or removed.
> There is really no need to have the same source code base for both
> uboot and uboot-tools.
>> I have also being thinking along these lines:
>> 1) Edit the uboot-tools makefile to not use its own build directory but
>> use uboot's build instead (silly idea idea I admit, but you never know...).
This will be the way to go - and much easier as soon as the out-of-tree
build is there. But it still requires more infrastructural change, since
currently there is no way to specify that a package doesn't have a source
itself, but the source comes from another package.
There are actually a few other packages out there that have or could
have the same "shared source, separate build" issue: kernel-headers,
>> 2) Edit the uboot package to optionally compile and install the
>> uboot-tools as well (this seems to me to be the most logical way).
>> Can I have your feedback?
> Basically, no, there's a good reason why we wanted two separate
> packages: we wanted to be able to build the U-Boot tools sometimes for
> the host (mkimage), sometimes for the target (fw_printenv, fw_setenv).
> The host-uboot-tools package is also used as a dependency of the Linux
> kernel package, and it is much simpler to depend on host-uboot-tools
> that to depend on the uboot package itself.
> So really, the current way things are done for uboot vs. uboot-tools
> has proven to work really well, and for now I don't see a compelling
> reason to change that.
> Best regards,
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F
More information about the buildroot