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

[Michael Olbrich <m.olbrich@pengutronix.de>]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 10:33:33PM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 09:46:30AM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > 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.

Great, I think I'll just drop the version selection.
Thanks for the feedback.

> > > 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 ;-)

Barebox is of course the best Bootloader ;-)

Regards,
Michael

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de