On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:00:50PM +0000, Joe Hershberger wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:53 PM Ondřej Jirman megous@megous.com wrote:
It sounds like your board / build config is not in the mainline tree, so there is no way Simon could have known it would break you, and it didn't break the existing boards, hence his comment. I strongly encourage you to send a series adding your config so that it has an opportunity to be build tested.
I'm using orangepi_pc_defconfig. It's mainline.
I just disable a few things, like USB and NET. That's enough for it to break the build.
Clearly the point is that the actual problematic config is not mainline.
I don't think my minimalistic config would be proper as a defconfig for that particular board.
I was not suggesting to replace it, simply to add a minimal one. There are plenty of examples of boards with several defconfigs.
Interesting, I may add one then. Not sure what sunxi maintainer will think of that, but if it has value for testing, why not. Probably just one minimal config would have caught this, so I guess it has some value.
Thanks for suggestion.
Anyway, the kernel has feature that generates random configs for revealing these kinds of issues.
Are you suggesting that you can port this to U-Boot so we can test in a similar way?
It's a Kconfig feature, you can already use it. Try make randconfig inside u-boot.
regards, o.
regards, o.
I'm more used to the Linux kernel, where it's sort of expected that random configurations at least build, if not boot.
No, that is the expectation here too, and generally we accomplish that.
I don't mind having local patches for my specific configurations, if expectations for straying from defconfig are different for u-boot.
regards, o.
Regards, Simon
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot