RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling

RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.

First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?

Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}

what do you think about all this?

regards,

Koen

CC: to Harald because I'm not sure he's on oe-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF1fFPMkyGM64RGpERAsM2AKCo48tTjyY1DPoTYDp/41E8sOOMTQCeO8T8
urHBB7VH79uq3fyR/9jBzk4=
=E7Ei
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]

The u-boot web page is http://sourceforge.net/projects/u-boot so I 
suggest we standardize on u-boot. Also the tarballs are u-boot-....

I also like your suggesting for installing mkimage.

Philip



Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
> buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
> 
> First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
> etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?
> 
> Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
> board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
> ${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}
> 
> what do you think about all this?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Koen
> 
> CC: to Harald because I'm not sure he's on oe-devel
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
> 
> iD8DBQFF1fFPMkyGM64RGpERAsM2AKCo48tTjyY1DPoTYDp/41E8sOOMTQCeO8T8
> urHBB7VH79uq3fyR/9jBzk4=
> =E7Ei
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling

[Harald Welte]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:00:47PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
 
> After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
> buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
> 
> First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
> etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?

u-boot is the official name, so I would recommend to go for that (even
though I hate hyphens inside project names)

> Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
> board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
> ${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}

are you sure it's arch specific?  I'm quite surprised about that, since
the uImage format contains a header indicating the architecture, doesn't
it?

If it really uses a different binary format for each arch, yes, we
should change it.  'mkuimage.${MACHINE_ARCH}' sounds like a more user
friendly name, though.

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@openmoko.org>          	        http://openmoko.org/
============================================================================
Software for the world's first truly open Free Software mobile phone

Re: RFC: making uboot safe for multimachine and agree on one spelling

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harald Welte schreef:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:00:47PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>  
>> After spending some time going trough u-boot recipes trying to make sense of its
>> buildsystem, I noticed some strange problems and inconsistencies.
>>
>> First the easy part: we need *one* spelling for u-boot, instead of uboot, u-boot, u-bot,
>> etc. What is the preferred one nowadays?
> 
> u-boot is the official name, so I would recommend to go for that (even
> though I hate hyphens inside project names)
> 
>> Second: it seems that the 'mkimage' tool is at least arch speficic (at worst
>> board-specific), so uboot recipes should install it to
>> ${STAGING_NATIVE_DIR}/mkimage.u-boot.${MACHINE_ARCH}
> 
> are you sure it's arch specific? 


I'm not sure, but mkimage refuses to build with all kind of missing definitions if you
don't have a board configured. It could be some safeguard to force people to have a board
definition.

> I'm quite surprised about that, since
> the uImage format contains a header indicating the architecture, doesn't
> it?
> 
> If it really uses a different binary format for each arch, yes, we
> should change it.  'mkuimage.${MACHINE_ARCH}' sounds like a more user
> friendly name, though.

And it avoid the hyphens :)

regards,

Koen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF1h/GMkyGM64RGpERAro9AJsGhesMzZ7CV8ooPz9L25+wQVdEJQCfQJ66
KUR4UJy42goEBy1tAkjBtVE=
=bM7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----