Use AT91BOOTSTRAP_BOARD instead of BOARD_NAME. Remove
AT91BOOTSTRAP_VERSION from the final binary image name.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
At the same time, remove the unused AT91BOOTSTRAP_PATCH_LEVEL and
AT91BOOTSTRAP_PATCHED_VERSION variables.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
The boot source configuration options were depending on U-Boot
configuration options. Let's make it independent and just allow the
user to select whichever boot source is appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
There no need to depends on BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP when the
configuration options are already inside a if
BR2_TARGET_AT91BOOTSTRAP.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
The build process of grub2 breaks the compilation. It breaks with:
./configure: line 4766: syntax error near unexpected token `external'
./configure: line 4766: `AM_GNU_GETTEXT(external)'
In addition to this, it later requires Ruby. Do we really want to make
Buildroot depend on Ruby being installed on the host ? Do we really
want to build our own Ruby ? Do we even care about Grub2 ?
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Much of the grub2.mk seems to have been copy/pasted from
grub.mk. However, all the network/splashimage related ./configure
options do not exist in grub2.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
grub2 now builds fine, but some work remains to make it usable. What
should be installed exactly in the TARGET_DIR ? What is the
installation procedure and what should Buildroot do ?
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
grub can already only be selected for x86 and x86_64. No need to check
again for this in grub.mk.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
The bootloader being very specific to the hardware, being able to
build U-Boot from an arbitrary tarball available on the web might be
needed.
Therefore, for U-Boot, we provide two methods :
* Get a given stable version from U-Boot official FTP server
* Get an arbitrary tarball
This should hopefully satisfy most needs, without complicating too
much the U-Boot build procedure on Buildroot side.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Remove all the bootsource selection mechanism and the horribly
complicated BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_DEFAULT_ENV thing, which wanted to be
generic, but was in fact very AT91-specific.
Just keep things simple: we build U-Boot with the board configuration
file specified in BR2_TARGET_UBOOT_BOARDNAME.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
To build mkimage for the host (which is needed to build an uImage of
the kernel), it is not necessary to configure U-Boot, and therefore to
have a particular board selected.
Therefore, this commit:
* Adds a verification at U-Boot configure step that a U-Boot board
name has been defined
* Sets a default U-Boot version if none has been specified, so that
even when U-Boot isn't selected but we want to build mkimage for
the host, a particular U-Boot version is picked.
* Make the host mkimage target depend only on U-Boot being
downloaded/extracted/patched, and the target mkimage/fw_printenv
targets depend on U-Boot being fully configured.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
A very complicated infrastructure for just a special case, for an
ancient version of U-Boot. Recent versions of U-Boot are reported to
work just fine on Atmel ARM evaluation boards.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Yaboot does not build, hasn't been updated since a long time, and
isn't very common these days on embedded PowerPC platforms.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
