Hey Joe,
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 23:31 -0500, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Hi Sjoerd,
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Make the sandbox setup more generic/examplary by including config_distro_defaults.h and config_distro_bootcmd.h.
Among other things this makes it easy to test whether images will boot though with the standard distro bootcmds by running e.g: u-boot -c 'host bind 0 myimage.img ; boot'
By default there are 2 target host devices to emulate device with multiple storage devices (e.g. internal ("host 0") and external ("host 1") and verify that the prioritization and fallbacks do work correctly.
Signed-off-by: Sjoerd Simons sjoerd.simons@collabora.co.uk Reviewed by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Acked-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
For me this has broken the build of the "env" target.
I get this following error:
In file included from /home/joe/u-boot/tools/env/fw_env.c:117: /usr/include/search.h:173: error: expected "}" before "BOOT_TARGET_DEVICES_references_HOST_without_CONFIG_SANDBOX" make[2]: *** [tools/env/fw_env.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [env] Error 2 make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
I haven't looked closely at the header you've added. Any quick thoughts about what's going on?
Hrm, the problem seems to be that when running "make env" CONFIG_SANDBOX isn't defined, so you get the error triggered above.
Essentially that error is trying to tell you - You're trying to build a config which will cause your boot environment to have commands not supported by this build..
I haven't dug out what exactly causes this difference in definitions but it does make me wonder whether we should trigger on something more conventional like CONFIG_CMD_HOST (similar to e.g. CONFIG_CMD_MMC) rather then CONFIG_SANDBOX