Re: [ptxdist] [RFC 3/4] libptxdist: add a function to find unreferenced source directories

[Ladislav Michl <ladis@linux-mips.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 09:46:30AM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Hei hei,
> 
> Am Montag, 9. September 2019, 08:23:00 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:16:51PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 4. September 2019, 15:05:04 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:01:58AM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > > > > FWIW, we are still using different versions of at91bootstrap in
> > > > > different
> > > > > BSPs. The legacy version (at91bootstrap) has patches in the directory
> > > > > 'patches/Bootstrap-v1.16' and the current version (at91bootstrap2) has
> > > > > them in 'patches/at91bootstrap-3.8.13'.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If one or the other package needs fixes, let me know.
> > > > 
> > > > PTXdist upstream has patches for 'at91bootstrap'. Do you use those, or
> > > > do
> > > > you have your own patch stack in your BSP?
> > > > 
> > > > I'd like to remove the patches from PTXdist. It's the only packages that
> > > > has a configurable version and patches for one specific version
> > > > upstream.
> > > 
> > > We have our own patches anyway.
> > > 
> > > And even if not, it would also be no problem to add them to our BSP, if
> > > ptxdist won't ship those anymore.
> > 
> > Hmm, so I noticed that I actually run build tests for this. And I'd
> > probably loose those if I drop the patches...

Yes, some of those patches are needed just to keep at91bootstrap build using
newer toolchains.

> > So another Idea: From what I understand, Upstream for this is dead, so
> > there will be no new version, right? Can I assume, that nowadays only
> > version 1.16 is used?
> 
> This is at91bootstrap version 1, from my point of view upstream focus is now 
> on version 3 only (the ptxdist package is called 'at91bootstrap2'). You choose 
> one or the other depending on your SoC/board, AFAIK there are only very few 
> boards supported by both, if any.
> 
> And: you can avoid at91bootstrap at all and use the SPL variant of U-Boot or 
> barebox instead for this stage of the bootloaders. (We never tried that.)

Same here. Even new products based on sam9g20 are using at91bootstrap, just
because it works well and noone ever bothered to use anything else.

> > In that case I could just remove the version options and keep the patches.
> > That way all my scripts are happy and it's still covered in my build tests.
> > 
> > Alex, would that make sense to you?
> 
> If you just want to pin the version to v1.16, I'm fine with that.

Again, same here.

> > Ladis, you submitted the last patch for this. Is this still relevant for
> > you? What do you think?

I do not really care either way. Even if you remove package completely I can
always keep local copy inside BSP. Or even better give barebox SPL try some
rainy autumn day ;-)

> > Michael
> 
> Greets
> Alex

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de