[U-Boot-Users] Proposal for patch to configure networkparameters

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <003801c784e0$7923d280$01c4af0a at Glamdring> you wrote:
>
> > This is not so different from Linux, btw. The only way to configure a
> > Linux kernel is by doing this inside the Linux source tree.
> 
> No, the way buildroot works is that you decompress a linux kernel and patch 
> it.

For a board that is fully supported by the kernel.org Linux  tree  no
patching is required, right?

> Then you can copy  $(LINUX26_KCONFIG) (defined by buildroot make 
> menucconfig)
> to the $(LINUX26_DIR)/.config.

And then you run thek kernel's config tool and make system. That's
what I mean when I said you do this inside the Linux source tree.

> This method meet my need to easily be able to select a working configuration 
> for Linux.

Agreed.

> I am doing the same for u-boot. A file is copied to 
> include/configs/<board>.h

Yes, that would be the equivalent, and should equally well.

> but there are somethings which always needs to change for a new user,
> and these things need to be configured using buildroot "make menuconfig"

OK. And here is where the problem starts: there is  no  easy  way  to
generate  a  "include/configs/<board>.h"  from  the "make menuconfig"
step.

Seems we're back at the technical level now, and I'm happy about this.

> One of my main requirements is a consistent interface and ideally
> everything is using the same configuration system.

Agreed.

> The problem with using Kconfig is that it generates a single .config file.
> It would be nice if it could generate one .config per package.
> buildroot, linux, u-boot, busybox.

Agreed.

> > I don't see how I could do anything against out of tree patches  even
> > if I wanted, nor am I aware that I ever tried.
> 
> You don't allow u-boot to have hooks for out of tree patches.

It seems we are using a different terminology here. To me, a patch is
something which you applly using the "patch" progarm  or  some  other
automated way like an "sed" or "perl" script etc.

And of course there is nothing I can do against  doing  this.  I  can
express my opinion that I don't like this because I think that better
solutions should be possible, but I cannot stoip you from doing it.

Note, that no "hooks" are needed for doing this.

> To be successful, there needs to exists a number of place holders
> where the developer have total control and simply can copy in out of tree 
> stuff.
> Relying on patching existing files makes upgrading your out of tree 
> structure
> unneccessary time consuming.

I fail to see where there is a  significant  difference  between  the
Linux  kernel and U-Boot: you can patch either of the source trees to
your liking, and when you copy a  "$(LINUX26_DIR)/.config"  file  for
Linux before running "make oldconfig" and "make uImage" you will copy
a "include/configs/<board>.h" file with U-Boot before you run "make".


The only difference, and I agree that it is  a  significant  one,  is
that you cannot easily auto-generate "include/configs/<board>.h" from
a  Kconfig  based  configuration system. You would need at least some
helper script, but even this should be straightforward to implement.


Instead of doing this, which fixes the problem for you while  leaving
the  rest  of the U-Boot community in the dark, we could also discuss
if there is a way to make U-Boot configuration easier for all of us.

It seems you prefer the first approach, while I am  looking  for  the
latter.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, HRB 165235 Munich, CEO: Wolfgang Denk
Office:  Kirchenstr. 5,       D-82194 Groebenzell,            Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
I have the simplest tastes.  I am always satisfied with the best.
                                                       -- Oscar Wilde