On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:58 AM Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:49 PM Alexey Brodkin
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 17:52 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:30 PM Otavio Salvador
> > > wrote:
> > > &
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:49 PM Alexey Brodkin
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 17:52 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:30 PM Otavio Salvador
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Alexey Brodkin
> > > wrote:
> > > &
Hello all,
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Otavio Salvador wrote:
...
> Looking at this, I am wondering if folowing wouldn't be a generic
> solution capable of upstreaming:
I posted the proposed patch to U-Boot mailing list as RFC so we can
see what their feedback is about th
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:30 PM Otavio Salvador wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:13 PM Alexey Brodkin
> wrote:
> > Even though we're not going to build here real U-Boot binary
> > it is still required to "configure" U-Boot to get get to the
> &
$(CONFIG_MX23)$(CONFIG_MX28)$(CONFIG_ARMADA_38X)$(CONFIG_ARMADA_39X)$(CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE),)
HOSTLOADLIBES_mkimage += \
$(shell pkg-config --libs libssl libcrypto 2> /dev/null ||
echo "-lssl -lcrypto")
If you do that, we can likely rely on this and avoid some extra tools
packa
nfig
> 2. Filtering "CONFIG_EFI_LOADER" from "sandbox_defconfig" right before
> execution of "make sandbox_defconfig"
>
> I think latter option is the simplest and cleanest.
>
> Should I send a patch for that?
Let's add Tom (U-Boot upstre
ls"
> still for compatibility we provide "u-boot-mkimage" with help
> of PROVIDES as well as proposed "u-boot-mkenvimage".
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin
> Cc: Richard Purdie
> Cc: Otavio Salvador
> Cc: Martin Jansa
> Cc: Ross Burton
> Cc:
gt; this recipe name switch from "u-boot-mkimage" to generic "u-boot-tools"
> > still for compatibility we provide "u-boot-mkimage" with help
> > of PROVIDES as well as proposed "u-boot-mkenvimage".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin
&
On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM Alexey Brodkin
wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Otavio Salvador [mailto:otavio.salva...@ossystems.com.br]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 6:49 PM
> > To: Burton, Ross
> > Cc: Peter Kjellerstedt ; Marek
sense to split; we are building an embedded system
build system and granular installation is a must have. Using PN to
install all tools is a win win combination.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobil
> Cc: Marek Vasut
> >
> > Do we want to generate one package per tool or not ?
>
> I think so, yes. Not all places will want all tools.
And a bonus to add a u-boot-tools-meta which rdepends on all. You can
copy code to do that from gstreamer-plugins packages.
--
Otavio Salvador
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:35 AM Martin Jansa wrote:
> yes fw-utils is similar, but has different dependencies and builds slightly
> differently.
fw-utils use the machine setup to find the default environment to use,
so it is indeed machine specific.
--
Otavio Sa
12 matches
Mail list logo
