[PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Otavio Salvador]

If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
the U-Boot example.

Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
---

 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
@@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
 	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
 	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
 	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
-	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
+
+	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
+	# of the generic one
+	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
+		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
+	else
+		install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config.example
+	fi
 }
 
 do_install_class-cross () {
-- 
2.13.1

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:15:12PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
> the U-Boot example.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> ---
> 
>  meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> @@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
>  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
>  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
>  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
> -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> +
> +	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
> +	# of the generic one
> +	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
> +		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config

I don't get it - if it's expected that a .bbappend will be adding a more 
specific version of fw_env.config, why that .bbappend can't simply install 
it with do_install_append()?


> +	else
> +		install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config.example
> +	fi
>  }
>  
>  do_install_class-cross () {
> -- 
> 2.13.1
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1838 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:55:44PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:15:12PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
> > the U-Boot example.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> > ---
> > 
> >  meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > @@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
> >  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
> >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
> >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
> > -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > +
> > +	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
> > +	# of the generic one
> > +	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
> > +		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> 
> I don't get it - if it's expected that a .bbappend will be adding a more 
> specific version of fw_env.config, why that .bbappend can't simply install 
> it with do_install_append()?

Well, this is a lot more user friendly, and it's quite likely that if a
platform intends to ship u-boot-fw-utils they intend to provide a
functional one as well.  It would be a best-practices to provide one
that works for a machine.conf that supports U-Boot, even (and has env
stored somewhere, I mean it even supports env as a file).

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Marek Vasut]

On 06/21/2017 01:55 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:15:12PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
>> the U-Boot example.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
>> ---
>>
>>  meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
>> index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
>> @@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
>>  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
>>  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
>>  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
>> -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
>> +
>> +	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
>> +	# of the generic one
>> +	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
>> +		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> 
> I don't get it - if it's expected that a .bbappend will be adding a more 
> specific version of fw_env.config, why that .bbappend can't simply install 
> it with do_install_append()?

+1 , I dont get it either. Just use do_install_append and be done with it.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:03:17AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:55:44PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:15:12PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
> > > the U-Boot example.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
> > > --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > @@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
> > >  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
> > >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
> > >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
> > > -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > > +
> > > +	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
> > > +	# of the generic one
> > > +	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
> > > +		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > 
> > I don't get it - if it's expected that a .bbappend will be adding a more 
> > specific version of fw_env.config, why that .bbappend can't simply install 
> > it with do_install_append()?
> 
> Well, this is a lot more user friendly, and it's quite likely that if a
> platform intends to ship u-boot-fw-utils they intend to provide a
> functional one as well.  It would be a best-practices to provide one
> that works for a machine.conf that supports U-Boot, even (and has env
> stored somewhere, I mean it even supports env as a file).

Why don't we go all the way there? If we say machine.conf is meant to define a 
machine-specific env config, let's do it generically.

What I'm arguing against here is some partial solution - modifying the global 
recipe in oe-core, but still require .bbappend to provide a file. It's should 
either be "do everything in .bbappend, like we all do now" or "do everything 
in main oe-core recipe and let machine.conf define it".

-- 
Denys

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2676 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:03:17AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:55:44PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 07:15:12PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > > If a fw_env.config file is found in workdir, this is preferred over
> > > > the U-Boot example.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb | 9 ++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > > index c2e8f0fb84..0682f9274b 100644
> > > > --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fw-utils_2017.05.bb
> > > > @@ -19,7 +19,14 @@ do_install () {
> > > >  	install -d ${D}${sysconfdir}
> > > >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_printenv
> > > >  	install -m 755 ${S}/tools/env/fw_printenv ${D}${base_sbindir}/fw_setenv
> > > > -	install -m 0644 ${S}/tools/env/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > > > +
> > > > +	# If a specific file is added in a .bbappend, this is used instead
> > > > +	# of the generic one
> > > > +	if [ -e ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ]; then
> > > > +		install -m 0644 ${WORKDIR}/fw_env.config ${D}${sysconfdir}/fw_env.config
> > > 
> > > I don't get it - if it's expected that a .bbappend will be adding a more 
> > > specific version of fw_env.config, why that .bbappend can't simply install 
> > > it with do_install_append()?
> > 
> > Well, this is a lot more user friendly, and it's quite likely that if a
> > platform intends to ship u-boot-fw-utils they intend to provide a
> > functional one as well.  It would be a best-practices to provide one
> > that works for a machine.conf that supports U-Boot, even (and has env
> > stored somewhere, I mean it even supports env as a file).
> 
> Why don't we go all the way there? If we say machine.conf is meant to define a 
> machine-specific env config, let's do it generically.
> 
> What I'm arguing against here is some partial solution - modifying the global 
> recipe in oe-core, but still require .bbappend to provide a file. It's should 
> either be "do everything in .bbappend, like we all do now" or "do everything 
> in main oe-core recipe and let machine.conf define it".

OK, we should do it globally with a ??= of the in-tree example only?  Or
just let u-boot-fw-utils fail to build?

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> What I'm arguing against here is some partial solution - modifying the global
>> recipe in oe-core, but still require .bbappend to provide a file. It's should
>> either be "do everything in .bbappend, like we all do now" or "do everything
>> in main oe-core recipe and let machine.conf define it".
>
> OK, we should do it globally with a ??= of the in-tree example only?  Or
> just let u-boot-fw-utils fail to build?

Maybe the best is to allow for boards to have its fw_env.config inside
U-Boot so people can provide a 'good' base for users. Doing so, we can
teach the recipe to install it?

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

Re: [PATCH] u-boot-fw-utils: Allow replacement of fw_env.config

[Tom Rini]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 03:01:36PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:50:23AM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> >> What I'm arguing against here is some partial solution - modifying the global
> >> recipe in oe-core, but still require .bbappend to provide a file. It's should
> >> either be "do everything in .bbappend, like we all do now" or "do everything
> >> in main oe-core recipe and let machine.conf define it".
> >
> > OK, we should do it globally with a ??= of the in-tree example only?  Or
> > just let u-boot-fw-utils fail to build?
> 
> Maybe the best is to allow for boards to have its fw_env.config inside
> U-Boot so people can provide a 'good' base for users. Doing so, we can
> teach the recipe to install it?

No, I don't like that.  One could generate probably-correct config for
NAND/NOR.  But UBI and FAT (and EXT4) start to become a per-distro
thing.  This is even somewhat true of MMC where it's more likely that
you'll know what maps out to /dev/mmcblk0 vs /dev/mmcblk1, and upstream
U-Boot won't know what kernel people are going to boot and then have
give a device name.

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]