Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: Factor out common bits
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: 2016-09-05 16:18:52
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