[Buildroot] [PATCH] u-boot: 2015.07 - fix creation of .config

[Alexey Brodkin]

Hi Thomas,

On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:18 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Alexey,
> 
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:04:35 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > Due to recent changes in U-Boot, see
> > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=a26cd04920dc069fd6e91abb785426cf6c29f45f
> > re-creation of .config from defconfig by "make oldconfig" happened
> > incorrectly.
> 
> Hum, reverting an upstream patch doesn't really seem like a proper
> solution for the problem. Also, it will only fix the problem for those
> using exactly U-Boot 2015.07, but not for the majority of users who
> have to use a vendor-specific U-Boot version (unfortunately).
> 
> So I believe we need to fix this properly, not by reverting an upstream
> patch.

To be honest I think that revert will happen upstream as well.
Recently I started discussion on that regard here http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2015-July/221101.html

The point is that problem has to be resolved upstream anyways in that or another way and I'll make sure
it happens sooner [I hope] or later. Because you know we prefer to stick to upstream and so we do care upstream
projects work for us.

And if [I hope] discussed problem is gone before the next release of Buildroot do we really care
how the problem is solved in Buildroot for existing release?

Note that problem I'm attempting to fix doesn't really affect U-Boot compilation or execution.
This is only related to its buildsystem. As a developers of U-Boot we [even though it was not I in person
behind that patch but I saw this and didn't recognize upcoming problem with oldconfig] wanted to make
life of U-Boot users a bit easier [see commit message to the original commit] but that attempt
caused problems for those who builds U-Boot in non-standard way [I mean not via "make xxx_defconfig && make"].

Hopefully that comment makes sense.

If not do you think there's a better way to fix a failure on attempt to build vanilla U-Boot v2015.07?

BTW speaking about vendor-specific U-Boot versions I think it's now mostly our legacy now.
If I'm not mistaken lots of boards may use vanilla U-Boot. For example Cubieboards and Wandboards
(I own these boards and tried vanilla U-boot on them) and many more ARM boards supported in Fedora
for ARM like Pandaboard, Olinuxinos etc. So it's just a matter of maintainers of those boards
(if we have them at all) to try latest vanilla U-Boot and update defconfigs then if all works.

-Alexey