[PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Paul Gortmaker]

This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
moved in.

The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.

Paul Gortmaker (3):
  u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
  u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
  u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12

 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb

-- 
1.7.7

[PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.

[Paul Gortmaker]

We don't want to force everyone to be stripping the -Os
flags from their u-boot builds.  Move it to the existing
recipes so that current behaviour is maintained, while
opening up the possibility for new recipes to avoid it.

Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    3 ---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 +++
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 +++
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
index 4180345..c19eb48 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
@@ -7,9 +7,6 @@ inherit deploy
 
 PARALLEL_MAKE=""
 
-# GCC 4.5.1 builds unusable binaries using -Os, remove it from OPTFLAGS
-EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} OPTFLAGS='-O2'"
-
 python () {
 	if not d.getVar("UBOOT_MACHINE", True):
 		PN = d.getVar("PN", True)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb
index 1ebdbea..fea1c74 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
                     file://README;beginline=1;endline=22;md5=3a00ef51d3fc96e9d6c1bc4708ccd3b5"
 
+# GCC 4.5.1 builds unusable binaries using -Os, remove it from OPTFLAGS
+EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} OPTFLAGS='-O2'"
+
 FILESDIR = "${@os.path.dirname(d.getVar('FILE',1))}/u-boot-git/${MACHINE}"
 
 # This revision corresponds to the tag "v2011.03"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb
index 8ebdbff..1bb6c48 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb
@@ -12,6 +12,9 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
 
 FILESDIR = "${@os.path.dirname(d.getVar('FILE',1))}/u-boot-git/${MACHINE}"
 
+# GCC 4.5.1 builds unusable binaries using -Os, remove it from OPTFLAGS
+EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} OPTFLAGS='-O2'"
+
 # This revision corresponds to the tag "v2011.06"
 # We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the repo during parse
 SRCREV = "b1af6f532e0d348b153d5c148369229d24af361a"
-- 
1.7.7

[PATCH 2/3] u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.

[Paul Gortmaker]

The setting is the same in both recipes, so move it to
the shared settings in u-boot.inc

Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    1 +
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    2 --
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    2 --
 3 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
index c19eb48..1979a56 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ do_install () {
 }
 
 FILES_${PN} = "/boot"
+FILESDIR = "${@os.path.dirname(d.getVar('FILE',1))}/u-boot-git/${MACHINE}"
 
 do_deploy () {
 	install ${S}/u-boot.bin ${DEPLOYDIR}/${UBOOT_IMAGE}
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb
index fea1c74..aa2e03a 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb
@@ -13,8 +13,6 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
 # GCC 4.5.1 builds unusable binaries using -Os, remove it from OPTFLAGS
 EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} OPTFLAGS='-O2'"
 
-FILESDIR = "${@os.path.dirname(d.getVar('FILE',1))}/u-boot-git/${MACHINE}"
-
 # This revision corresponds to the tag "v2011.03"
 # We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the repo during parse
 SRCREV = "19b54a701811220221fc4d5089a2bb18892018ca"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb
index 1bb6c48..295af1a 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb
@@ -10,8 +10,6 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
                     file://README;beginline=1;endline=22;md5=5ba4218ac89af7846802d0348df3fb90"
 
-FILESDIR = "${@os.path.dirname(d.getVar('FILE',1))}/u-boot-git/${MACHINE}"
-
 # GCC 4.5.1 builds unusable binaries using -Os, remove it from OPTFLAGS
 EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX} OPTFLAGS='-O2'"
 
-- 
1.7.7

[PATCH 3/3] u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12

[Paul Gortmaker]

The v2011.12 is the latest stable release of u-boot.

Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
---
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb

diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1dc0476
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+require u-boot.inc
+
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
+                    file://README;beginline=1;endline=22;md5=5ba4218ac89af7846802d0348df3fb90"
+
+EXTRA_OEMAKE = "CROSS_COMPILE=${TARGET_PREFIX}"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2011.12"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the repo during parse
+SRCREV = "cba9a894fdb1cb49b60fcd1d1d6919cbd7995dd5"
+
+PV = "v2011.12+git${SRCPV}"
+PR = "r0"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master;protocol=git"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
+
+PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"
-- 
1.7.7

Re: [PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Paul Gortmaker,

In message <1327681281-11454-2-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> you wrote:
> We don't want to force everyone to be stripping the -Os
> flags from their u-boot builds.  Move it to the existing
> recipes so that current behaviour is maintained, while
> opening up the possibility for new recipes to avoid it.

Is there any reason to keep this at all?  The compiler issues that
caused builds with -Os to fail have long been fixed.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Where people stand is not as important as which way they face.
        - Terry Pratchett & Stephen Briggs, _The Discworld Companion_

Re: [PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.

[Paul Gortmaker]

On 12-01-27 12:33 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Paul Gortmaker,
> 
> In message <1327681281-11454-2-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> you wrote:
>> We don't want to force everyone to be stripping the -Os
>> flags from their u-boot builds.  Move it to the existing
>> recipes so that current behaviour is maintained, while
>> opening up the possibility for new recipes to avoid it.
> 
> Is there any reason to keep this at all?  The compiler issues that
> caused builds with -Os to fail have long been fixed.

I would agree with you, but as I said in the commit log,
I don't want to be changing other people's settings that
I can't personally test.  If the owners of those platforms
figure that is an acceptable risk, then I'll gladly send
another patch to remove the -Os toggle entirely.

Paul.

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
> 

Re: [PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Paul,

In message <4F22E15B.4070105@windriver.com> you wrote:
>
> I would agree with you, but as I said in the commit log,
> I don't want to be changing other people's settings that
> I can't personally test.  If the owners of those platforms
> figure that is an acceptable risk, then I'll gladly send
> another patch to remove the -Os toggle entirely.

The compiler options used by U-Boot are pretty carefully tuned.
Messing with them is actually the greater risk - using -O2 instead of
-Os results in considerably larger code, which breaks for example the
mapping to flash sectors on a number of boards.

I recommend removing this.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Too many people are ready to carry the stool when the piano needs  to
be moved.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de> wrote:
> Dear Paul,
>
> In message <4F22E15B.4070105@windriver.com> you wrote:
>>
>> I would agree with you, but as I said in the commit log,
>> I don't want to be changing other people's settings that
>> I can't personally test.  If the owners of those platforms
>> figure that is an acceptable risk, then I'll gladly send
>> another patch to remove the -Os toggle entirely.
>

it was a kludge to cope with gcc and now that gcc is fixed it should be
removed. So please go ahead

> The compiler options used by U-Boot are pretty carefully tuned.
> Messing with them is actually the greater risk - using -O2 instead of
> -Os results in considerably larger code, which breaks for example the
> mapping to flash sectors on a number of boards.
>
> I recommend removing this.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
> Too many people are ready to carry the stool when the piano needs  to
> be moved.
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

Re: [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Saul Wold]

On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
> moved in.
>
> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>
> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>    u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>    u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>    u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>

Who are the current usages of the older u-boot and should they really be 
moved into the BSP layer?

Also, looking at this recipe, there might be more that can be shared in 
the .inc file.

Sau!

Re: [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Paul Gortmaker]

On 12-01-30 03:24 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>> moved in.
>>
>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>
>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>    u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>    u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>    u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>
> 
> Who are the current usages of the older u-boot and should they really be 
> moved into the BSP layer?

I'm not really sure who is using the older version, hence my
reluctance to introduce any changes to what they had, or where
they might be moved to (I'm relatively new to yocto/oe).

> 
> Also, looking at this recipe, there might be more that can be shared in 
> the .inc file.

Meaning you want me to redo and resubmit, or are you OK with
applying the existing content and having follow on commits
to possibly relocate recipes and make more stuff shared?

Thanks,
Paul.

> 
> Sau!
> 

Re: [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Saul Wold]

On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
> moved in.
>
> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>
> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>    u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>    u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>    u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>   4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>

What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?

Sau!

Re: [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Paul Gortmaker]

On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>> moved in.
>>
>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>
>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>    u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>    u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>    u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>   4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>
> 
> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?

It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
to really change often from one release to the next.

If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
them laying around, or STONITH?

Thanks,
Paul.

> 
> Sau!

Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Saul Wold]

On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>>> moved in.
>>>
>>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>>
>>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>>
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>>
>>
>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
>
> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> to really change often from one release to the next.
>
> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> them laying around, or STONITH?
>
Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
should go.

u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?

Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
compatibility of the older version?

Thanks
	Sau!

> Thanks,
> Paul.
>
>>
>> Sau!
>

Re: [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Saul Wold]

On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>>> moved in.
>>>
>>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>>
>>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>>
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>>
>>
>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
>
> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> to really change often from one release to the next.
>
> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> them laying around, or STONITH?
>
Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
should go.

u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?

Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
compatibility of the older version?

Thanks
	Sau!

> Thanks,
> Paul.
>
>>
>> Sau!
>

Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Darren Hart]

On 01/31/2012 10:34 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>>>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>>>> moved in.
>>>>
>>>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>>>
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
>>
>> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
>> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
>> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
>> to really change often from one release to the next.
>>
>> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
>> that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
>> them laying around, or STONITH?
>>
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
> should go.
> 
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
> 
> Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
> compatibility of the older version?

We should keep N and N-1 uboot versions around. This gives users time to
ensure their BSP works. After that, if new u-boot cannot be made to work
with a given BSP, then that BSP layer should include their own version
of a u-boot recipe in the layer's recipes-bsp/u-boot.

--
Darren

> 
> Thanks
> 	Sau!
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Paul.
>>
>>>
>>> Sau!
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Darren Hart]

On 01/31/2012 10:34 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
>>>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>>>> moved in.
>>>>
>>>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>>>
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
>>>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
>>
>> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
>> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
>> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
>> to really change often from one release to the next.
>>
>> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
>> that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
>> them laying around, or STONITH?
>>
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
> should go.
> 
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
> 
> Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
> compatibility of the older version?

We should keep N and N-1 uboot versions around. This gives users time to
ensure their BSP works. After that, if new u-boot cannot be made to work
with a given BSP, then that BSP layer should include their own version
of a u-boot recipe in the layer's recipes-bsp/u-boot.

--
Darren

> 
> Thanks
> 	Sau!
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Paul.
>>
>>>
>>> Sau!
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:34:34AM -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> >> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
> >>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
> >>> moved in.
> >>>
> >>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
> >>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
> >>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
> >>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
> >>>
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
> >
> > It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> > mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> > whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> > to really change often from one release to the next.
> >
> > If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> > that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> > them laying around, or STONITH?
> >
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
> should go.
> 
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
> 
> Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
> compatibility of the older version?

All machines from meta-smartphone which are using u-boot are using only
uboot.inc from oe-core, because each has own patchset derived from
specific upstream revision.

Not the best, but such machine specific u-boot_git.bb are quite small
and not so bad to maintain.

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:34:34AM -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> >> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
> >>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
> >>> moved in.
> >>>
> >>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
> >>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
> >>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
> >>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
> >>>
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
> >
> > It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> > mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> > whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> > to really change often from one release to the next.
> >
> > If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> > that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> > them laying around, or STONITH?
> >
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
> should go.
> 
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
> 
> Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
> compatibility of the older version?

All machines from meta-smartphone which are using u-boot are using only
uboot.inc from oe-core, because each has own patchset derived from
specific upstream revision.

Not the best, but such machine specific u-boot_git.bb are quite small
and not so bad to maintain.

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Paul Gortmaker]

[Re: [OE-core] [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.]
On 31/01/2012 (Tue 11:16) Darren Hart wrote:

> On 01/31/2012 10:34 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> > On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:

[...]

> >>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
> >>
> >> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> >> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> >> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> >> to really change often from one release to the next.
> >>
> >> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> >> that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> >> them laying around, or STONITH?
> >>
> > Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
> > should go.
> > 
> > u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
> > around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
> > to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
> > 
> > Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
> > u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
> > compatibility of the older version?
> 
> We should keep N and N-1 uboot versions around. This gives users time to
> ensure their BSP works. After that, if new u-boot cannot be made to work
> with a given BSP, then that BSP layer should include their own version
> of a u-boot recipe in the layer's recipes-bsp/u-boot.
> 
> --
> Darren
> 

From: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:29:12 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] u-boot: update mkimage to use latest version.

Update the mkimage to use 2011.12 version.  At the same time,
make it use git instead of tarball (2011.06 bb uses tar).

Delete the oldest recipes and patches specific to 2011.03
support for mkimage.  There is really no reason why anyone
would need to go back to an older version of mkimage.

Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
---
 .../conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc |    4 +-
 ...Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch |   39 ---------
 ...ove-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch |   82 --------------------
 ...Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch |   39 ---------
 ...ove-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch |   82 --------------------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.03.bb  |   31 --------
 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.12.bb  |   33 ++++++++
 7 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 275 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch
 delete mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.03.bb
 create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.12.bb

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc
index 1eb08a2..c9480ad 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/distro_tracking_fields.inc
@@ -1957,8 +1957,8 @@ RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-openswan = "Dexuan Cui <dexuan.cui@intel.com>"
 RECIPE_STATUS_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "red"
 DISTRO_PN_ALIAS_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "Ubuntu=uboot-mkimage Debian=uboot-mkimage"
 RECIPE_NO_UPDATE_REASON_pn-u-boot-mkimage ="target version is not used"
-RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "2010.03"
-RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "Dec 15, 2009"
+RECIPE_LATEST_VERSION_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "2011.12"
+RECIPE_LAST_UPDATE_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "Jan 31, 2012"
 RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-u-boot-mkimage = "Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>"
 
 RECIPE_STATUS_pn-zaurusd = "green"
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 0405834..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-From ce56e089ddb51dbd81bb2c86b1646d77447afe39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: =?UTF-8?q?Lo=C3=AFc=20Minier?= <loic.minier@linaro.org>
-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:07:01 +0100
-Subject: Drop config.h include in tools/imximage.h
-MIME-Version: 1.0
-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
-
-Upstream-Status: Accepted
-
-"make tools-all" should allow building tools such as mkimage and the new
-imximage without any config, but imximage.c currently fails to build
-with:
-imximage.h:27:20: error: config.h: No such file or directory
-
-config.h is not needed in imximage.h nor in imximage.c, and imximage.h
-is only included from imximage.c, so drop this include to fix the build.
-
-Signed-off-by: Loïc Minier <loic.minier@linaro.org>
----
- tools/imximage.h |    2 --
- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
-
-diff --git a/tools/imximage.h b/tools/imximage.h
-index 38ca6be..d126a46 100644
---- a/tools/imximage.h
-+++ b/tools/imximage.h
-@@ -24,8 +24,6 @@
- #ifndef _IMXIMAGE_H_
- #define _IMXIMAGE_H_
- 
--#include <config.h>
--
- #define MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V2 121 /* Max number of registers imx can set for v2 */
- #define MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V1 60  /* Max number of registers imx can set for v1 */
- #define APP_CODE_BARKER	0xB1
--- 
-1.7.4.4
-
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 5729cd9..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage-2011.03/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
-From fd1b50c5ff9c288040abf5e78815151327d32e0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:45:37 +0000
-Subject: config.mk: move LDSCRIPT processing to the top-level Makefile
-
-Upstream-Status: Accepted
-
-LDSCRIPT is used only from the top-level Makefile and only when the
-system is configured so we can move LDSCRIPT and CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT
-related logic into the top level Makefile and under configured condition
-to avoid errors when building tools from unconfigured tree.
-
-Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
-Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
----
- Makefile  |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- config.mk |    8 --------
- 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
-
-diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
-index ece91ab..358c410 100644
---- a/Makefile
-+++ b/Makefile
-@@ -163,6 +163,36 @@ endif
- # load other configuration
- include $(TOPDIR)/config.mk
- 
-+# If board code explicitly specified LDSCRIPT or CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT, use
-+# that (or fail if absent).  Otherwise, search for a linker script in a
-+# standard location.
-+
-+ifndef LDSCRIPT
-+	#LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds.debug
-+	ifdef CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT
-+		# need to strip off double quotes
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(subst ",,$(CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT))
-+	endif
-+endif
-+
-+ifndef LDSCRIPT
-+	ifeq ($(CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT),y)
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds
-+		ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+			LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/$(CPUDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds
-+		endif
-+	endif
-+	ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds
-+	endif
-+	ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/$(CPUDIR)/u-boot.lds
-+	endif
-+	ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+$(error could not find linker script)
-+	endif
-+endif
-+
- #########################################################################
- # U-Boot objects....order is important (i.e. start must be first)
- 
-diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk
-index fa46ff1..59c4c93 100644
---- a/config.mk
-+++ b/config.mk
-@@ -153,14 +153,6 @@ endif
- RELFLAGS= $(PLATFORM_RELFLAGS)
- DBGFLAGS= -g # -DDEBUG
- OPTFLAGS= -Os #-fomit-frame-pointer
--ifndef LDSCRIPT
--#LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds.debug
--ifeq ($(CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT),y)
--LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds
--else
--LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds
--endif
--endif
- OBJCFLAGS += --gap-fill=0xff
- 
- gccincdir := $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include)
--- 
-1.7.5.4
-
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 0405834..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,39 +0,0 @@
-From ce56e089ddb51dbd81bb2c86b1646d77447afe39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: =?UTF-8?q?Lo=C3=AFc=20Minier?= <loic.minier@linaro.org>
-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:07:01 +0100
-Subject: Drop config.h include in tools/imximage.h
-MIME-Version: 1.0
-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
-
-Upstream-Status: Accepted
-
-"make tools-all" should allow building tools such as mkimage and the new
-imximage without any config, but imximage.c currently fails to build
-with:
-imximage.h:27:20: error: config.h: No such file or directory
-
-config.h is not needed in imximage.h nor in imximage.c, and imximage.h
-is only included from imximage.c, so drop this include to fix the build.
-
-Signed-off-by: Loïc Minier <loic.minier@linaro.org>
----
- tools/imximage.h |    2 --
- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
-
-diff --git a/tools/imximage.h b/tools/imximage.h
-index 38ca6be..d126a46 100644
---- a/tools/imximage.h
-+++ b/tools/imximage.h
-@@ -24,8 +24,6 @@
- #ifndef _IMXIMAGE_H_
- #define _IMXIMAGE_H_
- 
--#include <config.h>
--
- #define MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V2 121 /* Max number of registers imx can set for v2 */
- #define MAX_HW_CFG_SIZE_V1 60  /* Max number of registers imx can set for v1 */
- #define APP_CODE_BARKER	0xB1
--- 
-1.7.4.4
-
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch
deleted file mode 100644
index 5729cd9..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage/0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,82 +0,0 @@
-From fd1b50c5ff9c288040abf5e78815151327d32e0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
-From: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:45:37 +0000
-Subject: config.mk: move LDSCRIPT processing to the top-level Makefile
-
-Upstream-Status: Accepted
-
-LDSCRIPT is used only from the top-level Makefile and only when the
-system is configured so we can move LDSCRIPT and CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT
-related logic into the top level Makefile and under configured condition
-to avoid errors when building tools from unconfigured tree.
-
-Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok <yanok@emcraft.com>
-Acked-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
----
- Makefile  |   30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- config.mk |    8 --------
- 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
-
-diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
-index ece91ab..358c410 100644
---- a/Makefile
-+++ b/Makefile
-@@ -163,6 +163,36 @@ endif
- # load other configuration
- include $(TOPDIR)/config.mk
- 
-+# If board code explicitly specified LDSCRIPT or CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT, use
-+# that (or fail if absent).  Otherwise, search for a linker script in a
-+# standard location.
-+
-+ifndef LDSCRIPT
-+	#LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds.debug
-+	ifdef CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT
-+		# need to strip off double quotes
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(subst ",,$(CONFIG_SYS_LDSCRIPT))
-+	endif
-+endif
-+
-+ifndef LDSCRIPT
-+	ifeq ($(CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT),y)
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds
-+		ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+			LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/$(CPUDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds
-+		endif
-+	endif
-+	ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds
-+	endif
-+	ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+		LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/$(CPUDIR)/u-boot.lds
-+	endif
-+	ifeq ($(wildcard $(LDSCRIPT)),)
-+$(error could not find linker script)
-+	endif
-+endif
-+
- #########################################################################
- # U-Boot objects....order is important (i.e. start must be first)
- 
-diff --git a/config.mk b/config.mk
-index fa46ff1..59c4c93 100644
---- a/config.mk
-+++ b/config.mk
-@@ -153,14 +153,6 @@ endif
- RELFLAGS= $(PLATFORM_RELFLAGS)
- DBGFLAGS= -g # -DDEBUG
- OPTFLAGS= -Os #-fomit-frame-pointer
--ifndef LDSCRIPT
--#LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds.debug
--ifeq ($(CONFIG_NAND_U_BOOT),y)
--LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot-nand.lds
--else
--LDSCRIPT := $(TOPDIR)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/u-boot.lds
--endif
--endif
- OBJCFLAGS += --gap-fill=0xff
- 
- gccincdir := $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name=include)
--- 
-1.7.5.4
-
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.03.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.03.bb
deleted file mode 100644
index 34bae8e..0000000
--- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.03.bb
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-DESCRIPTION = "U-boot bootloader mkimage tool"
-LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
-LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
-                    file://README;beginline=1;endline=22;md5=3a00ef51d3fc96e9d6c1bc4708ccd3b5"
-SECTION = "bootloader"
-
-PR = "r1"
-
-SRC_URI = "ftp://ftp.denx.de/pub/u-boot/u-boot-${PV}.tar.bz2 \
-           file://0001-Drop-config.h-include-in-tools-imximage.h.patch \
-           file://0002-config.mk-move-LDSCRIPT-processing-to-the-top-level-.patch"
-
-SRC_URI[md5sum] = "91d02124c94368557d0e9ac05fb8c33f"
-SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "08677f66d8d4ee542f6599f580cdffdf730544e1803f9d3739117d6f6d68083e"
-
-S = "${WORKDIR}/u-boot-${PV}"
-
-BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk"
-
-EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}" HOSTLD="${LD}" HOSTSTRIP=true'
-
-do_compile () {
-  oe_runmake tools
-}
-
-do_install () {
-  install -d ${D}${bindir}
-  install -m 0755 tools/mkimage ${D}${bindir}/uboot-mkimage
-  ln -sf uboot-mkimage ${D}${bindir}/mkimage
-}
-
diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.12.bb b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.12.bb
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e58af74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-mkimage_2011.12.bb
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+DESCRIPTION = "U-boot bootloader mkimage tool"
+LICENSE = "GPLv2+"
+LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=1707d6db1d42237583f50183a5651ecb \
+                    file://README;beginline=1;endline=22;md5=5ba4218ac89af7846802d0348df3fb90"
+SECTION = "bootloader"
+
+PR = "r0"
+
+# This revision corresponds to the tag "v2011.12"
+# We use the revision in order to avoid having to fetch it from the repo during parse
+SRCREV = "cba9a894fdb1cb49b60fcd1d1d6919cbd7995dd5"
+
+PV = "v2011.12+git${SRCPV}"
+PR = "r0"
+
+SRC_URI = "git://git.denx.de/u-boot.git;branch=master;protocol=git"
+
+S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
+
+BBCLASSEXTEND = "native nativesdk"
+
+EXTRA_OEMAKE = 'HOSTCC="${CC}" HOSTLD="${LD}" HOSTLDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}" HOSTSTRIP=true'
+
+do_compile () {
+  oe_runmake tools
+}
+
+do_install () {
+  install -d ${D}${bindir}
+  install -m 0755 tools/mkimage ${D}${bindir}/uboot-mkimage
+  ln -sf uboot-mkimage ${D}${bindir}/mkimage
+}
+
-- 
1.7.7