On 11/3/2023 3:05 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2023 at 11:23:47AM -0500, Ryan Eatmon wrote:
On 11/2/2023 8:08 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 11:48:28AM +0100, Massimiliano Minella wrote:
From: Ryan Eatmon <reat...@ti.com>
Move to setting the values for PREFERRED_PROVIDER using the
?= default assignment so that we can override the setting if
we would like to.
Signed-off-by: Ryan Eatmon <reat...@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Massimiliano Minella <massimiliano.mine...@se.com>
---
meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc
b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc
index c5c03cbf..184d3a09 100644
--- a/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc
+++ b/meta-ti-bsp/conf/machine/include/k3r5.inc
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ require conf/machine/include/arm/armv7a/tune-cortexa8.inc
# https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-u-boot/ti-u-boot/tree/doc/board/ti/j721e_evm.rst
# https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-u-boot/ti-u-boot/tree/doc/board/ti/am62x_sk.rst
# https://git.ti.com/cgit/ti-u-boot/ti-u-boot/tree/doc/board/ti/k3.rst
-PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-dummy"
-PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/bootloader = "u-boot-ti-staging"
-PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot = "u-boot-ti-staging"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-dummy"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/bootloader ?= "u-boot-ti-staging"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot ?= "u-boot-ti-staging"
Being able to override u-boot for k3r5 makes sense.
But allowing to change the kernel for k3r5 multiconfig that is now marked as
baremetal is rather dubious...
What kind of use-case requires it?
I think the the use case that I created the original patch for was
the upstream testing. We need to be able to change the kernel and
uboot versions for the testing not having the ?= was causing issues.
Please note this is specifically for k3r5, a baremetal config, where
kernel is "neutered" by setting it to "linux-dummy". There are tons of
implicit dependencies deep inside the OE on the kernel and all its pieces,
modules, packages, and supporting components, which linux-dummy cuts out,
making it a NOP.
There's no reason to ever change it even for upstream builds and testing.
Not allowing it to be changed is a safeguard of sorts.
And since it is now being requested for backporting by Massimiliano, hence
my question about the use-case...
Yep. I'll take a look and see if it is needed for upstream...
And since this patch is on master and thus will be coming to the
upcoming scarthgap branch shortly, I see no reason to not take it
for kirkstone.
But if we want to rethink all of this, I'm not opposed.
SPL_SUFFIX = "bin"
SPL_BINARY =
"tiboot3-${SYSFW_SOC}-${SYSFW_SUFFIX}-${SYSFW_CONFIG}.${SPL_SUFFIX}"
--
2.42.0
--
Ryan Eatmon reat...@ti.com
-----------------------------------------
Texas Instruments, Inc. - LCPD - MGTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#17238):
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17238
Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/102339031/21656
Group Owner: meta-ti+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/leave/6695321/21656/1393940836/xyzzy
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
