[Buildroot] [v3, 1/4] barebox: prepare for secondary config build

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 02/29/16 08:47, Pieter Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 09:12:04AM +0100, Pieter Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 12:17:15AM +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
>>> On 01/20/16 23:43, Pieter Smith wrote:
>> [snip] 
>>>  I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to keep barebox.mk unchanged, and just add
>>> at the end (after the kconfig-package):
>>>
>>> include boot/barebox/barebox-2/barebox-2.mk
>>>
>>>  That's not entirely similar to gcc, but it's more consistent with what it
>>> means. You always have the barebox package, and you have an optional extra
>>> barebox-2 package which is a kind of submodule of barebox. Note however that we
>>> currently don't have this pattern at all, so it could be controversial. But I
>>> think it will simplify the patch a lot, and also simplify the logic.
>>>
>>>  So in that case, you'd have a first patch that adds the required refactorings
>>> in barebox.mk so the same variables are useable for barebox-2, and a second
>>> patch that adds barebox-2 (and patches 3 and 4 stay the same of course).
>>
>> Yes. Thanks. A lot less messy. I started looking into this. It seems doable. It
>> might be neater to still split a barebox-common.mk to avoid a long list of
>> variable copies. Give me a day on this.
>  
> Thanks for the suggestion. It is shaping up nicely. There is one aspect that I
> would appreciate input on: To all but completely eliminate duplication in the
> makefiles for the two packages, I am wrapping all the current functionality in
> boot/barebox/barebox.mk in a parameterized barebox-package function. E.g.:
> 
>   define barebox-package
>   $(1)_VERSION = $$(call qstrip,$$(BR2_TARGET_BAREBOX_VERSION))
>   ...
>   $$(eval $$(kconfig-package))
>   endef
>   $(eval $(call barebox-package,BAREBOX))
> 
> And the whole of boot/barebox/barebox-2/barebox-2.mk becomes:
> 
>   $(eval $(call barebox-package,BAREBOX_2))

 No, I don't think we want this, because it hides a lot of what barebox-2 is
doing internally. It's OK and actually better (in my opinion) if barebox-2.mk is
just a long list like:

BAREBOX_2_VERSION = $(BAREBOX_VERSION)
BAREBOX_2_SITE = $(BAREBOX_SITE)
...
BAREBOX_2_BUILD_CMDS = $(BAREBOX_BUILD_CMDS)
...
$(eval $(kconfig-package))


 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
> This however cannot avoid Config.in duplication, but the barebox-2 makefile
> inherits all future barebox makefile improvements. The catch is that existing
> barebox patches will have merge conflicts.
> 
> I already tied up with Yegor on the embedded custom environment patch-set,
> which he is willing to rebase + solve the merge conflicts. We can then submit
> the series with Yegor's patch and a barebox defconfig for the Beaglebone Black
> as per your suggestion.
> 
> Do you think this is acceptable?
> 
>>>  This is complicated stuff, thanks for working on this, and sorry that it's
>>> taking so long!
>>>
>>>  Regards,
>>>  Arnout
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
>>> Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
>>> Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
>>> G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
>>> LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
>>> GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF
>>
>> - Pieter
> - Pieter
> 


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF