2013-06-06 23:54:13 +02:00
|
|
|
################################################################################
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
#
|
|
|
|
|
# at91bootstrap3
|
|
|
|
|
#
|
2013-06-06 23:54:13 +02:00
|
|
|
################################################################################
|
2013-06-06 01:53:25 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2015-06-02 10:46:20 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_VERSION = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_VERSION))
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-16 16:06:34 +01:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL),y)
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_TARBALL = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL_LOCATION))
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SITE = $(patsubst %/,%,$(dir $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_TARBALL)))
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SOURCE = $(notdir $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_TARBALL))
|
|
|
|
|
BR_NO_CHECK_HASH_FOR += $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SOURCE)
|
|
|
|
|
else ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_GIT),y)
|
2015-06-02 10:46:20 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SITE = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_REPO_URL))
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SITE_METHOD = git
|
2017-03-21 01:07:09 +01:00
|
|
|
BR_NO_CHECK_HASH_FOR += $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SOURCE)
|
2015-06-02 10:46:20 +02:00
|
|
|
else
|
2014-06-15 15:33:48 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_SITE = $(call github,linux4sam,at91bootstrap,$(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_VERSION))
|
2015-06-02 10:46:20 +02:00
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-19 13:35:22 +02:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION),y)
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = MIT
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE_FILES = LICENSES/MIT.txt
|
|
|
|
|
else ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION_3X),y)
|
2015-06-02 10:46:18 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = Atmel License
|
2021-08-19 13:35:22 +02:00
|
|
|
endif
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2021-01-21 23:10:46 +01:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CPE_ID_VENDOR = linux4sam
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CPE_ID_PRODUCT = at91bootstrap
|
|
|
|
|
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_IMAGES = YES
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-18 23:37:48 +02:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_NEEDS_PYTHON3),y)
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_DEPENDENCIES += host-python3
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR = \
|
|
|
|
|
$(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR))
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-09-27 21:32:38 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_MAKE_OPTS = CROSS_COMPILE=$(TARGET_CROSS) DESTDIR=$(BINARIES_DIR)
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifneq ($(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR),)
|
|
|
|
|
define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_APPLY_CUSTOM_PATCHES
|
2015-03-29 19:33:22 +02:00
|
|
|
$(APPLY_PATCHES) $(@D) $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_PATCH_DIR) \*.patch
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
endef
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_POST_PATCH_HOOKS += AT91BOOTSTRAP3_APPLY_CUSTOM_PATCHES
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_BUILD_CMDS
|
2014-12-03 17:18:25 +01:00
|
|
|
$(MAKE) $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_MAKE_OPTS) -C $(@D)
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
endef
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_IMAGES_CMDS
|
boot/at91bootstrap3: add support for at91bootstrap 4.x series
The project at https://github.com/linux4sam/at91bootstrap was until
now releasing 3.x versions, which were packaged using
boot/at91bootstrap3/ in Buildroot. Microchip has now started a new
branch of at91bootstrap, called 4.x, which will only support the
following devices: sam9x60, sama5d2, sama5d3, sama5d4, sama7g5. A
number of older devices from Microchip will only be supported by the
existing 3.x series.
Therefore, we cannot simply remove support for the 3.x series, and
allow using only the 4.x series.
So what this commit does is extend the boot/at91bootstrap3 package to
support building both 3.x and 4.x versions. In detail, this implies:
* Having the BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION symbol point to
the latest 4.x version. Indeed, we want
BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION to really point to the
latest upstream version, even if that means potential breakage for
users. Users who want to use a fixed version of at91bootstrap
should anyway not be using
BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION.
* Introduce BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION_3X for users who
would like to use the latest 3.x series.
* Adjust the installation logic, as images to install are now in
build/binaries/*.bin instead of binaries/*.bin. In order to not
have to differentiate 3.x and 4.x, we simply use $(wildcard ...) to
expand the list of files to install.
* To make it clear that boot/at91bootstrap3 supports both 3.x and
4.x, we also update the prompt of the package.
at911bootstrap does not carry a license file; so far we were using
main.c as the license file, as it carries the license blurb. Now that we
have a known alternate version, we would need a per-version hash for
that file. However, this is a bit too cumbersome to handle, so just drop
using main.c as the license file. When upstream introduces a proper
license file, we can revisit the situation.
Update the two defconfigs that were using the upstream 3.9.3 version;
all other defconfigs are using custom tarballs or custom git trees.
Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@microchip.com>
[Thomas: while this patch is based on previous work by Eugen, it was
reworked quite significantly.]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
[yann.morin.1998@free.fr:
- drop main.c as license file, explain why
- update the two defconfigs
]
Signed-off-by: Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr>
2021-05-18 23:37:46 +02:00
|
|
|
cp $(wildcard $(@D)/build/binaries/*.bin $(@D)/binaries/*.bin) $(BINARIES_DIR)
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
endef
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-04-06 16:03:06 +02:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_USE_DEFCONFIG),y)
|
2015-12-22 22:22:03 +01:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_DEFCONFIG))_defconfig
|
2015-04-06 16:03:06 +02:00
|
|
|
else ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_USE_CUSTOM_CONFIG),y)
|
2015-12-22 22:22:03 +01:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_FILE = $(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE))
|
2015-04-06 16:03:06 +02:00
|
|
|
endif
|
2015-04-06 23:41:18 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2015-04-06 16:03:06 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_EDITORS = menuconfig xconfig gconfig
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_OPTS = $(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_MAKE_OPTS)
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Checks to give errors that the user can understand
|
2015-07-13 12:32:01 +02:00
|
|
|
# Must be before we call to kconfig-package
|
2015-04-26 11:51:15 +02:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR_BUILDING),y)
|
2015-07-13 12:32:01 +02:00
|
|
|
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_USE_DEFCONFIG),y)
|
2015-12-22 22:22:03 +01:00
|
|
|
# We must use the user-supplied kconfig value, because
|
|
|
|
|
# AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_DEFCONFIG will at least contain
|
|
|
|
|
# the trailing _defconfig
|
2015-12-23 09:37:36 +01:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_DEFCONFIG)),)
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
$(error No at91bootstrap3 defconfig name specified, check your BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_DEFCONFIG setting)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_USE_CUSTOM_CONFIG),y)
|
2015-12-22 22:22:03 +01:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(AT91BOOTSTRAP3_KCONFIG_FILE),)
|
at91bootstrap3: new package
Note that this new package, at91bootstrap3, is being added alongside the
existing at91bootstrap. This was suggested by Thomas Petazzoni, whose
comments on the mailing list are quoted below.
For this package, I am not sure we can do a simple version bump. Since
there is (was?) no upstream for AT91Bootstrap 1.x, many
vendors/companies had to maintain their patches on top of AT91Bootstrap
1.x. See for example
board/calao/usb-a9263/at91bootstrap-1.16-usb-a9263.patch. Therefore,
removing AT91Bootstrap 1.x from the tree will prevent those platforms
to work. I know people should upgrade, but AT91Bootstrap 3.x is quite
significantly different, so the porting effort is not that simple.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether we should kee at91bootstrap as it is,
and create a separate package at91bootstrap3 for the 3.x generation.
Signed-off-by: Simon Dawson <spdawson@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
2012-08-17 10:36:23 +02:00
|
|
|
$(error No at91bootstrap3 configuration file specified, check your BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_CONFIG_FILE setting)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
2015-06-02 10:46:20 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_GIT),y)
|
|
|
|
|
ifeq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_REPO_URL)),)
|
|
|
|
|
$(error No custom at91bootstrap3 repository URL specified. Check your BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_REPO_URL setting)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
ifeq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_REPO_VERSION)),)
|
|
|
|
|
$(error No custom at91bootstrap3 repository version specified. Check your BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_REPO_VERSION setting)
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
2019-12-16 16:06:34 +01:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL),y)
|
|
|
|
|
ifeq ($(call qstrip,$(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL_LOCATION)),)
|
|
|
|
|
$(error No custom AT91Bootstrap3 tarball specified. Check your BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL_LOCATION setting)
|
|
|
|
|
endif # qstrip BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL_LOCATION
|
|
|
|
|
endif # BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_CUSTOM_TARBALL
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-07-13 12:32:01 +02:00
|
|
|
endif # BR_BUILDING
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$(eval $(kconfig-package))
|
