On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 13:54 Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 10:27:49AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:40 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:20:08PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
The motivation for this is to allow distributions to distribute all possible tools in a generic way, avoiding the need of specific tools building for each machine.
Especially on OpenEmbedded / Yocto Project ecosystem, it is very common each BSP to end providing their specific tools when they need to generate images for some SoC (e.g MX23 / MX28 in meta-freescale case).
Using this, we can package the tools doing:
$: make tools-only_defconfig $: make tools-only
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador otavio@ossystems.com.br
configs/tools-only_defconfig | 3 +++ tools/Makefile | 2 +- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 configs/tools-only_defconfig
diff --git a/configs/tools-only_defconfig
b/configs/tools-only_defconfig
new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..be69bdf43a --- /dev/null +++ b/configs/tools-only_defconfig @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE=0 +CONFIG_FIT=y +CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE=y diff --git a/tools/Makefile b/tools/Makefile index 3c0521f655..e916d0cebb 100644 --- a/tools/Makefile +++ b/tools/Makefile @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ fit_info-objs := $(dumpimage-mkimage-objs)
fit_info.o
fit_check_sign-objs := $(dumpimage-mkimage-objs) fit_check_sign.o file2include-objs := file2include.o
-ifneq ($(CONFIG_MX23)$(CONFIG_MX28),) +ifneq ($(CONFIG_MX23)$(CONFIG_MX28)$(CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE),) # Add CONFIG_MXS into host CFLAGS, so we can check whether or not
register
# the mxsimage support within tools/mxsimage.c . HOSTCFLAGS_mxsimage.o += -DCONFIG_MXS
Adding in Peter since Fedora had this same problem crop up. Does something like this work for you guys? Also adding in Vagrant
Cascadian
since Debian might want to switch to this too. Thoughts? Thanks!
We currently use the tools-all option, details below, to build the tools, which broken in 2018.11 on non arm/x86 platforms due to the sandbox dep being added in there. I'm happy to adjust as necessary to fix that but I'm not sure the difference between tools-all vs the above.
make CROSS_COMPILE="" defconfig V=1 O=builds/ make CROSS_COMPILE="" tools-all V=1 O=builds/
Well, with the above you would do tools-only_defconfig then tools-all, and we would make sure to _not_ enable options in tools-only_defconfig that may not build on some host platforms as it's intended only for building tools rather than the myriad of things sandbox is used for.
That would be fine as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks Peter