Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] meta: u-boot: Prepare for newer versions

[vijai kumar <vijaikumar.kanagarajan@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 11:59 AM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>
> On 26.11.21 07:07, vijai kumar wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:04 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25.11.21 17:27, vijai kumar wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:12 PM vijai kumar
> >>> <vijaikumar.kanagarajan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:24 PM Gylstorff Quirin
> >>>> <quirin.gylstorff@siemens.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/22/21 4:26 PM, Vijai Kumar K wrote:
> >>>>>> Newer versions of u-boot require libssl-dev:native for compilation.
> >>>>>> It also needs libssl-dev of the host architecture for cross compilation
> >>>>>> of tools.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vijai Kumar K <Vijaikumar_Kanagarajan@mentor.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>   meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc | 4 +++-
> >>>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc
> >>>>>> index 5198809..cfae0e2 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc
> >>>>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-custom.inc
> >>>>>> @@ -41,7 +41,9 @@ python() {
> >>>>>>               d.setVar('U_BOOT_BUILD_PROFILES_remove', "config")
> >>>>>>   }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS ?= "bc, bison, flex, device-tree-compiler, git"
> >>>>>> +DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS ?= "bc, bison, flex, device-tree-compiler, git, libssl-dev:native"
> >>>>>> +DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS += "${@', libssl-dev' \
> >>>>>> +     if bb.utils.contains('U_BOOT_BUILD_PROFILES', 'tools', 1, 0, d) else ''}"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is there are reason why you didn't use `Build-Depends syntax extension`
> >>>>> from[1]?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Hi Quirin,
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. There was. The previous version of patch depends on
> >>>> ISAR_CROSS_COMPILE as well.
> >>>>
> >>>> Guess there is nothing stopping us now. But, wondering if we can start
> >>>> introducing it via some
> >>>> example app with some documentation so that basic users are not
> >>>> puzzled on seeing that line in
> >>>> a recipe.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, we could define a whole new variable to help recipe writers to
> >>>> define profiles and seamlessly
> >>>> use them without the need to explicitly export DEB_BUILD_PROFILES in
> >>>> the recipe's dpkg_runbuild
> >>>>
> >>>> Now that we are serious enough, we should probably take care of your
> >>>> earlier comment
> >>>> as well on following the standard. So that we don't conflict with
> >>>> Debian's predefined variables in case
> >>>> we decided to build a package fetched from apt:// and wanted to make
> >>>> use of its profile settings.
> >>>>
> >>>> Still need to look further but these are my initial thoughts. I could
> >>>> probably send some patches for review in
> >>>> coming days.
> >>>>
> >>>> For now, maybe we should call it and use pkg.uboot.tools instead of
> >>>> tools here so that we don't
> >>>> find something in that implementation that requires us to change this
> >>>> in future, possibly breaking
> >>>> u-boot / or the need to provide compatibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> OTOH, This could still go in. Since the design I am thinking of is not
> >>> finalized and might take some discussions in the list, there is no
> >>> point in holding this back.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think Quirin was just asking for
> >>
> >> DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS ?= "bc, bison, flex, device-tree-compiler, git, \
> >>         libssl-dev:native, libssl-dev <tools>"
> >>
> >> rather than using bitbake logic. If that also works, would be more elegant.
> >
> > Yes, that also works. But just a bit difficult to read for normal users.
>
> It's more Debian-style, thus to be preferred according to Isar principles.

Ok.  v3 coming up. It should be on the mailing list anytime now.

Thanks,
Vijai Kumar K

>
> Jan
>
> --
> Siemens AG, T RDA IOT
> Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux