Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH 6/7] u-boot: allow generation of custom environment binary

[Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com>]

Hello,

Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2018, 14:26:10 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 01:27:13PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2018, 10:58:50 CEST schrieb Denis OSTERLAND:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 10.10.2018, 14:03 +0200 schrieb Ahmad Fatoum:
> > > > +ifdef PTXCONF_U_BOOT_ENV
> > > > +	@$(U_BOOT_DIR)/tools/mkenvimage \
> > > > +		$(U_BOOT_ENV_FLAGS) -s $(PTXCONF_U_BOOT_ENV_IMAGE_SIZE) \
> > > > +		-o $(U_BOOT_DIR)/uboot-env.bin \
> > > > +		$(U_BOOT_ENV_TXT)
> > > > +endif
> > > 
> > > We had a similar case, but end up with an image of compiled in env,
> > > using
> > > get_default_envs script.
> > > We didn´t had the time to clean it up.
> > 
> > Same usecase here, but …
> > 
> > What I did was creating a new platform image rule depending on
> > HOST_U_BOOT_TOOLS. Creating an U-Boot environment image file is
> > independent
> > from building U-Boot itself and it creates an artefact I would consider an
> > image. I'm not happy seeing this feature inside the U-Boot target package
> > itself.
> 
> Ahmad had a separate package originally but I told him to integrate it...
> It seemed more natural to me. Maybe because the environment is more
> integrated in barebox and that's what I usually use.
> But I'm not too set on it either way.

Well, if I understood correctly from just looking at the current rules in 
master, the barebox package builds its environment in the compile stage. I 
guess it does not make much sense to build a barebox env and not barebox or an 
u-boot env without booting u-boot, so I can understand why one would want to 
integrate it into that package. Bootloader and kernel image itself are also 
put to IMAGEDIR from "normal" packages, not image packages, right?

> > The reason I didn't share my rules/image-ubootenv.make and
> > platforms/image-
> > ubootenv.in was setting lots of custom options through the menu by
> > replacing placeholders, which makes that approach a little more complex
> > than just creating such an image from a static file.
> > 
> > If anyone is interested though, I could share.
> 
> Hmm, we could use ptxd_replace_magic() in general and source the config
> files for this. Then a BSP could overwrite just the menu file and add some
> options. Would that match your use-case?

I didn't know about ptxd_replace_magic() before, but it seems to do exactly 
what I achieved with calls to sed in my rules/image-ubootenv.make … so from a 
quick glance I would say yes, it could match my use-case.

> What about the script (patch 7/7)? Do you think that should be a separate
> package too?

I did not yet use U-Boot scripts that way before (but maybe will do soon), but 
the same reasoning applies as above. Maybe it's better to have it all in one 
place in the U-Boot package.

Greets
Alex


_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de