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
|
|
|
|
|
2015-06-02 10:46:18 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE = Atmel License
|
2020-02-05 15:48:42 +01:00
|
|
|
ifeq ($(BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LATEST_VERSION),y)
|
2015-06-02 10:46:18 +02:00
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_LICENSE_FILES = main.c
|
2020-02-05 15:48:42 +01:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_IMAGES = YES
|
|
|
|
AT91BOOTSTRAP3_INSTALL_TARGET = NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
2014-06-15 15:33:48 +02:00
|
|
|
cp $(@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))
|