On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 10:33:33PM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 09:46:30AM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > Am Montag, 9. September 2019, 08:23:00 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich: > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:16:51PM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > > > Am Mittwoch, 4. September 2019, 15:05:04 CEST schrieb Michael Olbrich: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:01:58AM +0200, Alexander Dahl wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, we are still using different versions of at91bootstrap in > > > > > > different > > > > > > BSPs. The legacy version (at91bootstrap) has patches in the > > > > > > directory > > > > > > 'patches/Bootstrap-v1.16' and the current version (at91bootstrap2) > > > > > > has > > > > > > them in 'patches/at91bootstrap-3.8.13'. > > > > > > > > > > > > If one or the other package needs fixes, let me know. > > > > > > > > > > PTXdist upstream has patches for 'at91bootstrap'. Do you use those, or > > > > > do > > > > > you have your own patch stack in your BSP? > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to remove the patches from PTXdist. It's the only packages > > > > > that > > > > > has a configurable version and patches for one specific version > > > > > upstream. > > > > > > > > We have our own patches anyway. > > > > > > > > And even if not, it would also be no problem to add them to our BSP, if > > > > ptxdist won't ship those anymore. > > > > > > Hmm, so I noticed that I actually run build tests for this. And I'd > > > probably loose those if I drop the patches... > > Yes, some of those patches are needed just to keep at91bootstrap build using > newer toolchains. > > > > So another Idea: From what I understand, Upstream for this is dead, so > > > there will be no new version, right? Can I assume, that nowadays only > > > version 1.16 is used? > > > > This is at91bootstrap version 1, from my point of view upstream focus is > > now > > on version 3 only (the ptxdist package is called 'at91bootstrap2'). You > > choose > > one or the other depending on your SoC/board, AFAIK there are only very few > > boards supported by both, if any. > > > > And: you can avoid at91bootstrap at all and use the SPL variant of U-Boot > > or > > barebox instead for this stage of the bootloaders. (We never tried that.) > > Same here. Even new products based on sam9g20 are using at91bootstrap, just > because it works well and noone ever bothered to use anything else. > > > > In that case I could just remove the version options and keep the patches. > > > That way all my scripts are happy and it's still covered in my build > > > tests. > > > > > > Alex, would that make sense to you? > > > > If you just want to pin the version to v1.16, I'm fine with that. > > Again, same here.
Great, I think I'll just drop the version selection. Thanks for the feedback. > > > Ladis, you submitted the last patch for this. Is this still relevant for > > > you? What do you think? > > I do not really care either way. Even if you remove package completely I can > always keep local copy inside BSP. Or even better give barebox SPL try some > rainy autumn day ;-) Barebox is of course the best Bootloader ;-) Regards, Michael -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de
