Atmel specific handling in buildroot

Hi,

Why is it again we have special handling of Atmel targets?

git grep -B2 'default.*if BR2_TARGET_ATMEL' ~/source/buildroot
target/Config.in-choice
target/Config.in- prompt "Kernel type"
target/Config.in: default BR2_KERNEL_LINUX_ADVANCED if BR2_TARGET_ATMEL

target/device/Config.in.linux.patches-  depends on !BR2_KERNEL_PREPATCHED
target/device/Config.in.linux.patches-  default y if BR2_avr32
target/device/Config.in.linux.patches:  default y if BR2_TARGET_ATMEL && BR2_arm

--
target/linux/Config.in.advanced-config BR2_LINUX_COPYTO_TFTPBOOT
target/linux/Config.in.advanced- bool "Copy kernel to /tftpboot"
target/linux/Config.in.advanced: default y if BR2_TARGET_ATMEL
--
target/linux/Config.in.advanced-config BR2_LINUX_COPY_CONFIGURATION
target/linux/Config.in.advanced- bool "Copy buildroot configuration to Li
target/linux/Config.in.advanced: default y if BR2_TARGET_ATMEL

Do we really need that? It would imho be a lot more sensible if BR behaved the same way for all archs.

Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Peter> Hi,
Peter> Why is it again we have special handling of Atmel targets?

..
Peter> target/linux/Config.in.advanced: default y if BR2_TARGET_ATMEL

Peter> Do we really need that? It would imho be a lot more sensible if BR Peter> behaved the same way for all archs.

No objections? Good, then I'll remove them.

Bye, Peter Korsgaard

s?n 2009-02-01 klockan 16:03 +0100 skrev Peter Korsgaard:

There are several things here

1) If there is an architecture patch available for an architecture, then it should have default yes.
I can't think of a situation where you prefer not to apply the architecture patch for the AT91 or AVR32.
The only reason is that you are building a kernel for where there is no valid patch.
If there is no architecture patch, then obviously
it should be default no.

2) I think that we should reduce the choice to only have no kernel or the advanced configuration.

3) For copy to, that should be collected to a single copy to

BR
Ulf Samuelsson

Ulf> There are several things here

Ulf> 1) If there is an architecture patch available for an architecture,

 Ulf>    then it should have default yes.
 Ulf>    I can't think of a situation where you prefer not to apply
 Ulf>    the architecture patch for the AT91 or AVR32.
 Ulf>    The only reason is that you are building a kernel for where
 Ulf>    there is no valid patch.
 Ulf>    If there is no architecture patch, then obviously 
 Ulf>    it should be default no.

Ok, but that's only one of the settings, so you're fine with me fixing the COPYTO / kernel type thingies?

Bye, Peter Korsgaard

s?n 2009-02-01 klockan 17:13 +0100 skrev Peter Korsgaard:

I dont think you will build correctly unless you use the advanced kernel setting for the AVR32 and AT91.

Copying the build configuration to the root file system is in line with the open source model, since it helps people to reproduce whatever is on the board if they buy the product.
If you want to debug something, then it is good to know how it was configured.

If someone calls in with a board without this, then it is too late to do anything about it.

Obviously, since I put it there, I want to have it ON for all my customers.

As for the copyto, this is a convenience, and people can configure whatever they want.
I find that it saves time to have this on.

BR
Ulf Samuelsson

Hi,

Ulf> I dont think you will build correctly unless you use the Ulf> advanced kernel setting for the AVR32 and AT91.

Huh, why wouldn't BR2_KERNEL_none work for those targets?

Ulf> Copying the build configuration to the root file system Ulf> is in line with the open source model, since Ulf> it helps people to reproduce whatever is on the board Ulf> if they buy the product.

Not only that, That info is required by the license.

Ulf> If you want to debug something, then it is good to Ulf> know how it was configured.

Ulf> If someone calls in with a board without this, then it is Ulf> too late to do anything about it.

Ulf> Obviously, since I put it there, I want to have it ON Ulf> for all my customers.

Fine, that's why we have the configuration in the first place I guess - But the question isn't about what you or your customers want, it's about what the default should be in BR.

It makes sense to default these to off like for everything else, so I'll remove the atmel special case.

Ulf> As for the copyto, this is a convenience, and people Ulf> can configure whatever they want.
Ulf> I find that it saves time to have this on.

Again, feel free to use it, but it shouldn't be default (E.G. it breaks the build when you don't have a /tftpboot and/or it isn't writable.

Bye, Peter Korsgaard