[U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "env: net: Move eth_parse_enetaddr() to net.c/h"
sjg at chromium.org
Mon Sep 16 16:45:10 UTC 2019
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 at 14:11, Ondřej Jirman <megous at megous.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:00:50PM +0000, Joe Hershberger wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:53 PM Ondřej Jirman <megous at megous.com> wrote:
> > > > It sounds like your board / build config is not in the mainline tree,
> > > > so there is no way Simon could have known it would break you, and it
> > > > didn't break the existing boards, hence his comment. I strongly
> > > > encourage you to send a series adding your config so that it has an
> > > > opportunity to be build tested.
> > >
> > > I'm using orangepi_pc_defconfig. It's mainline.
> > >
> > > I just disable a few things, like USB and NET. That's enough for it to
> > > break the build.
> > Clearly the point is that the actual problematic config is not mainline.
> > > I don't think my minimalistic config would be proper as a defconfig for that
> > > particular board.
> > I was not suggesting to replace it, simply to add a minimal one. There
> > are plenty of examples of boards with several defconfigs.
> Interesting, I may add one then. Not sure what sunxi maintainer will think of
> that, but if it has value for testing, why not. Probably just one minimal
> config would have caught this, so I guess it has some value.
> Thanks for suggestion.
> > > Anyway, the kernel has feature that generates random
> > > configs for revealing these kinds of issues.
> > Are you suggesting that you can port this to U-Boot so we can test in
> > a similar way?
> It's a Kconfig feature, you can already use it. Try make randconfig inside
Another suggestion that might be better: add a new sandbox_nonet
build. I suspect this would throw up quite a few issues. Also since it
is more generic the build coverage would likely be better.
More information about the U-Boot