| Message ID | 1508602460-4807-1-git-send-email-abrodkin@synopsys.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
| Series | uboot: Make Kconfig a default build system | expand |
Hello, On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:14:20 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires > Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default > build system which matches U-Boot version requirements. > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com> This will break all defconfigs of people that still use older U-Boot versions. So I'm not sure if/when we want to do it. Thomas
Hi Thomas, 2017-10-21 19:33 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni < thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Hello, > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:14:20 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires > > Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default > > build system which matches U-Boot version requirements. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com> > > This will break all defconfigs of people that still use older U-Boot > versions. So I'm not sure if/when we want to do it. Ok that makes sense. Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG and one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96. So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail. -Alexey <div dir="ltr">Hi Thomas,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-21 19:33 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com" target="_blank">thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br> <span class="gmail-"><br> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:14:20 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:<br> > Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires<br> > Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default<br> > build system which matches U-Boot version requirements.<br> ><br> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <<a href="mailto:abrodkin@synopsys.com">abrodkin@synopsys.com</a>><br> <br> </span>This will break all defconfigs of people that still use older U-Boot<br> versions. So I'm not sure if/when we want to do it.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok that makes sense.</div><div>Only 62 of defconfigs mention <span style="font-size:12.8px">BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_</span><wbr style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">KCONFIG and</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">-Alexey</span></div></div></div></div>
Hello, On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:44:35 +0300, Алексей Бродкин wrote: > Ok that makes sense. > Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG and > one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96. > > So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail. Well the defconfigs that are in Buildroot we could easily fix, so it's not really the issue. The issue is more with all the defconfigs that people/companies have locally for their own projects. That being said, it's true at some point, it would make sense to switch over to Kconfig as the default. The question is when to do that without breaking things for too many users. Thomas
Hi Thomas, 2017-10-21 19:56 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni < thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Hello, > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:44:35 +0300, Алексей Бродкин wrote: > > > Ok that makes sense. > > Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG and > > one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY of totally 96. > > > > So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail. > > Well the defconfigs that are in Buildroot we could easily fix, so it's > not really the issue. The issue is more with all the defconfigs that > people/companies have locally for their own projects. > > That being said, it's true at some point, it would make sense to switch > over to Kconfig as the default. The question is when to do that without > breaking things for too many users. That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff. What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother? -Alexey <div dir="ltr">Hi Thomas,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-21 19:56 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com" target="_blank">thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br> <span class=""><br> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 19:44:35 +0300, Алексей Бродкин wrote:<br> <br> > Ok that makes sense.<br> > Only 62 of defconfigs mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_<wbr>KCONFIG and<br> > one mention BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_<wbr>LEGACY of totally 96.<br> ><br> > So chances are indeed some of 33 other boards might fail.<br> <br> </span>Well the defconfigs that are in Buildroot we could easily fix, so it's<br> not really the issue. The issue is more with all the defconfigs that<br> people/companies have locally for their own projects.<br> <br> That being said, it's true at some point, it would make sense to switch<br> over to Kconfig as the default. The question is when to do that without<br> breaking things for too many users.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff.</div><div>What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother?</div><div><br></div><div>-Alexey</div></div></div></div>
Hello, On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:12:49 +0300, Алексей Бродкин wrote: > That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff. > What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother? Come on, people making real products are never going to upstream their defconfigs to Buildroot. They are highly specific, potentially confidential. We wouldn't even accept them in Buildroot. Thomas
Hi Thomas, 2017-10-21 20:18 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni < thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>: > Hello, > > On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:12:49 +0300, Алексей Бродкин wrote: > > > That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff. > > What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother? > > Come on, people making real products are never going to upstream their > defconfigs to Buildroot. They are highly specific, potentially > confidential. We wouldn't even accept them in Buildroot. > That's all understood but I'm pretty sure they don't follow upstream master branch and it takes a second to fix that problem if it arises once people jump onto newer BR release, right? -Alexey <div dir="ltr">Hi Thomas,<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-21 20:18 GMT+03:00 Thomas Petazzoni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com" target="_blank">thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br> <span class=""><br> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 20:12:49 +0300, Алексей Бродкин wrote:<br> <br> > That's exactly the reason to upstream your stuff.<br> > What's not in upstream it doesn't exist so why bother?<br> <br> </span>Come on, people making real products are never going to upstream their<br> defconfigs to Buildroot. They are highly specific, potentially<br> confidential. We wouldn't even accept them in Buildroot.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's all understood but I'm pretty sure they don't follow upstream master branch and it takes a second to fix that problem if it arises once people jump onto newer BR release, right?</div><div><br></div><div>-Alexey</div></div></div></div>
diff --git a/boot/uboot/Config.in b/boot/uboot/Config.in index 8215912339ba..2d3f189a548a 100644 --- a/boot/uboot/Config.in +++ b/boot/uboot/Config.in @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ config BR2_TARGET_UBOOT if BR2_TARGET_UBOOT choice prompt "Build system" - default BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY + default BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_KCONFIG config BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BUILD_SYSTEM_LEGACY bool "Legacy"
Given now default U-Boot version is 2017.09 and it requires Kconfig build system it makes perfect sense to have default build system which matches U-Boot version requirements. Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com> --- boot/uboot/Config.in | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)