[PATCH 1/2] u-boot: Factor out common bits

The u-boot recipes share a couple of common variables, which makes
updating of the recipes error prone and a toil. Factor those common
bits into u-boot-common.inc so that they are in one place.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc          | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb | 16 ++--------------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb  | 17 ++---------------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc                 | 10 ++--------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb          |  7 -------
 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..403e316
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+HOMEPAGE = "http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome"
+SECTION = "bootloaders"
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the
+# repo during parse
+SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
+
+PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb
index 79f1548..e35cf4d 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb

@@ -1,20 +1,8 @@
+require u-boot-common.inc
+
 SUMMARY = "U-Boot bootloader fw_printenv/setenv utilities"
-LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
-SECTION = "bootloader"
 DEPENDS = "mtd-utils"
 
-# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
-# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the
-# repo during parse
-SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
-
-PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
-
-SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
-
-S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
-
 INSANE_SKIP_${PN} = "already-stripped"
 EXTRA_OEMAKE_class-target = 'CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} CC="${CC} ${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" V=1'
 EXTRA_OEMAKE_class-cross = 'ARCH=${TARGET_ARCH} CC="${CC} ${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" V=1'

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb
index d5921a0..5e23f73 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb

@@ -1,21 +1,8 @@
-SUMMARY = "U-Boot bootloader image creation tool"
-LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
-SECTION = "bootloader"
+require u-boot-common.inc
 
+SUMMARY = "U-Boot bootloader image creation tool"
 DEPENDS = "openssl"
 
-# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
-# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the
-# repo during parse
-SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
-
-PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
-
-SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
-
-S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
-
 EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'CROSS_COMPILE="${TARGET_PREFIX}" CC="${CC} ${CFLAGS} ${LDFLAGS}" STRIP=true V=1'
 
 do_compile () {

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
index 2a94d26..e5ca1c5 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc

@@ -1,14 +1,8 @@
+require u-boot-common.inc
+
 SUMMARY = "Universal Boot Loader for embedded devices"
-HOMEPAGE = "http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome"
-SECTION = "bootloaders"
 PROVIDES = "virtual/bootloader"
 
-LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
-
-SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
-
-S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
 B = "${WORKDIR}/build"
 
 PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb
index 836b0ce..2a16915 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb

@@ -1,10 +1,3 @@
 require u-boot.inc
 
 DEPENDS += "dtc-native"
-
-# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
-# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the
-# repo during parse
-SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
-
-PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"

-- 
2.9.3

Upgrade U-Boot to the latest version.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc                           | 6 +++---
 .../{u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb => u-boot-fw-utils_2016.07.bb}      | 0
 .../u-boot/{u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb => u-boot-mkimage_2016.07.bb} | 0
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot_2016.03.bb => u-boot_2016.07.bb}    | 0
 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 rename meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb => u-boot-fw-utils_2016.07.bb} (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb => u-boot-mkimage_2016.07.bb} (100%)
 rename meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot_2016.03.bb => u-boot_2016.07.bb} (100%)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
index 403e316..76d566b 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

@@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ SECTION = "bootloaders"
 LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
 
-# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.07"
 # We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the
 # repo during parse
-SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
+SRCREV = "19ce924ff914f315dc2fdf79f357825c513aed6e"
 
-PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
+PV = "v2016.07+git${SRCPV}"
 
 SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
 

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.07.bb
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb
rename to meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.07.bb
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.07.bb
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb
rename to meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.07.bb
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.07.bb
similarity index 100%
rename from meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb
rename to meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.07.bb
-- 
2.9.3

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

Since the common file you're creating is 2016.03 version specific, I'd
be tempted to call it u-boot-common_2016.03.inc and then its clear its
version specific...

Cheers,

Richard

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

The u-boot recipes share a couple of common variables, which makes
updating of the recipes error prone and a toil. Factor those common
bits into u-boot-common.inc so that they are in one place.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc          | 16
++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb | 16 ++--------
------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb  | 17 ++--------
-------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc                 | 10 ++--------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb          |  7 -------
 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..403e316

--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+HOMEPAGE = "http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome"
+SECTION = "bootloaders"
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =

"file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the
+# repo during parse
+SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
+
+PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"

Since the common file you're creating is 2016.03 version specific, I'd
be tempted to call it u-boot-common_2016.03.inc and then its clear its
version specific...

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this current patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the version in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only rename the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds some toil.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

The u-boot recipes share a couple of common variables, which
makes
updating of the recipes error prone and a toil. Factor those
common
bits into u-boot-common.inc so that they are in one place.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc          | 16
++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb | 16 ++----
----
------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb  | 17 ++----
----
-------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc                 | 10 ++----
----
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb          |  7 -------
 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..403e316

--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+HOMEPAGE = "http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome"
+SECTION = "bootloaders"
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =

"file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from
the
+# repo during parse
+SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
+
+PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"

Since the common file you're creating is 2016.03 version specific,
I'd
be tempted to call it u-boot-common_2016.03.inc and then its clear
its
version specific...

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Cheers,

Richard

On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

The u-boot recipes share a couple of common variables, which
makes
updating of the recipes error prone and a toil. Factor those
common
bits into u-boot-common.inc so that they are in one place.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc          | 16
++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb | 16 ++----
----
------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb  | 17 ++----
----
-------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc                 | 10 ++----
----
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb          |  7 -------
 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..403e316

--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+HOMEPAGE = "http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome"
+SECTION = "bootloaders"
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =

"file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from
the
+# repo during parse
+SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
+
+PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"

Since the common file you're creating is 2016.03 version specific,
I'd
be tempted to call it u-boot-common_2016.03.inc and then its clear
its
version specific...

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Ah right, thanks :)

I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:

On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

The u-boot recipes share a couple of common variables, which
makes
updating of the recipes error prone and a toil. Factor those
common
bits into u-boot-common.inc so that they are in one place.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc          | 16
++++++++++++++++
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2016.03.bb | 16 ++----
----
------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2016.03.bb  | 17 ++----
----
-------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc                 | 10 ++----
----
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2016.03.bb          |  7 -------
 5 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..403e316

--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-common.inc

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+HOMEPAGE = "http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/WebHome"
+SECTION = "bootloaders"
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =

"file://Licenses/README;md5=a2c678cfd4a4d97135585cad908541c6"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2016.03"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from
the
+# repo during parse
+SRCREV = "df61a74e6845ec9bdcdd48d2aff5e9c2c6debeaa"
+
+PV = "v2016.03+git${SRCPV}"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"

Since the common file you're creating is 2016.03 version specific,
I'd
be tempted to call it u-boot-common_2016.03.inc and then its clear
its
version specific...

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Ah right, thanks :)

I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .

I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without
having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 00:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this
current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the
version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only
rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their
content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds
some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Ah right, thanks :)

I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .

I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without
having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ?

Just put includes in the versioned files rather than from u-boot.inc?

Cheers,

Richard

On 09/05/2016 01:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 00:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this
current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the
version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only
rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their
content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds
some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Ah right, thanks :)

I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .

I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without
having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ?

Just put includes in the versioned files rather than from u-boot.inc?

Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
afterall.

Thanks!

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/05/2016 01:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 00:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this
current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the
version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only
rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their
content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds
some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Ah right, thanks :)

I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .

I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without
having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ?

Just put includes in the versioned files rather than from u-boot.inc?

Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
afterall.

It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the
recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading
it.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

On 09/05/2016 03:51 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 01:02 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 00:33 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:23 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 12:11 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 23:49 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

quoted

On 09/04/2016 11:28 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 18:21 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:

Yes, except when new version of U-Boot comes out and we want to
perform
update of the u-boot{,mkimage,fw-utils} recipes, with this
current
patch
as is, we'd only have to rename these recipes and change the
version
in
u-boot-common.inc . With your proposal, we'd have to not only
rename
the
recipes and tweak u-boot-common.inc, but also edit their
content and
change the "require u-boot-common_20yy.mm.inc" bit, which adds
some
toil.

Unless its:

require u-boot-common_${PV}.inc

since it should be able to extract PV from the filename...

Ah right, thanks :)

I'll rebuild/retest and send a V2 .

I was a bit hasty, the u-boot.inc includes u-boot-common.inc without
having PV set. Any idea how to deal with that ?

Just put includes in the versioned files rather than from u-boot.inc?

Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
afterall.

It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the
recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading
it.

The u-boot recipe mess would need _far_ more cleanup . If you don't mind
me breaking all sorts of BSPs , I would gladly do far more intrusive
changes. What do you say ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/05/2016 03:51 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
afterall.

It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the
recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading
it.

The u-boot recipe mess would need _far_ more cleanup . If you don't mind
me breaking all sorts of BSPs , I would gladly do far more intrusive
changes. What do you say ?

I would love to see the proposed patches.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

On 09/05/2016 06:22 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 03:51 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
afterall.

It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the
recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading
it.

The u-boot recipe mess would need _far_ more cleanup . If you don't mind
me breaking all sorts of BSPs , I would gladly do far more intrusive
changes. What do you say ?

I would love to see the proposed patches.

That'd depend on whether they'd be NAK'd right away for breaking BSPs or
not.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/05/2016 06:22 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 03:51 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Wouldn't that break some BSPs ? I factored out code from the u-boot.inc
afterall.

It will but I consider this fine for master as this clean up the
recipes and ensures people goes on the review process while upgrading
it.

The u-boot recipe mess would need _far_ more cleanup . If you don't mind
me breaking all sorts of BSPs , I would gladly do far more intrusive
changes. What do you say ?

I would love to see the proposed patches.

That'd depend on whether they'd be NAK'd right away for breaking BSPs or
not.

It will depends on the type of breakage and the benefits it puts on the table.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 13:26 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 06:22 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref]
wrote:
I would love to see the proposed patches.

That'd depend on whether they'd be NAK'd right away for breaking
BSPs or
not.

It will depends on the type of breakage and the benefits it puts on
the table.

I would note that we are past feature freeze at this point and I'm
struggling to get stability in the patches we have queued without
anything in addition to that.

If there is a pressing attractive reason we should do this now I'm
willing to listen but it might be better waiting for 2.3...

Cheers,

Richard

On 09/05/2016 09:33 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 13:26 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 06:22 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref]
wrote:
I would love to see the proposed patches.

That'd depend on whether they'd be NAK'd right away for breaking
BSPs or
not.

It will depends on the type of breakage and the benefits it puts on
the table.

I would note that we are past feature freeze at this point and I'm
struggling to get stability in the patches we have queued without
anything in addition to that.

If there is a pressing attractive reason we should do this now I'm
willing to listen but it might be better waiting for 2.3...

Definitely wait for 2.3 with any disruptive changes please.

U-Boot 2016.09 will be out on september 12th, but I don't know if that
can make it into 2.2 release. I can certainly send a patch to update
the recipe.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

On 09/05/2016 09:33 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 13:26 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 09/05/2016 06:22 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Marek Vasut [off-list ref]
wrote:
I would love to see the proposed patches.

That'd depend on whether they'd be NAK'd right away for breaking
BSPs or
not.

It will depends on the type of breakage and the benefits it puts on
the table.

I would note that we are past feature freeze at this point and I'm
struggling to get stability in the patches we have queued without
anything in addition to that.

If there is a pressing attractive reason we should do this now I'm
willing to listen but it might be better waiting for 2.3...

Definitely wait for 2.3 with any disruptive changes please.

U-Boot 2016.09 will be out on september 12th, but I don't know if that
can make it into 2.2 release. I can certainly send a patch to update
the recipe.

I would support its addition; the risk of it is small and the set of
reference BSP is also small so should be fine.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

On 09/04/2016 07:21 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:

Upgrade U-Boot to the latest version.

The latest version meanwhile changed to 2016.09, can you update to that?

Alex