From: Trent Piepho <tpiepho@kymetacorp.com>
To: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" <barebox@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: barebox PBL question
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:12:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1487096017.20042.316.camel@kymetacorp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170214072704.7erbpueegfqmjqus@pengutronix.de>
On Tue, 2017-02-14 at 08:27 +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > You should use PBL_MULTI_IMAGES instead. In fact, the existing Rockchip
> > > port already does this.
> >
> > Is there any advantage to the single image pbl system? It seems like multi image
> > with one image achieves the same result.
>
> The advantage is that the same config and only one build step is used
> to build images for multiple boards/projects. This greatly increases the
> chance that the existing configs are actually tested. Also it makes it
> easy to test the same software on different boards. Another thing is
> that I can currently built test every commit in every defconfig,
> something I couldn't do if every board had its own defconfig, possibly
> in a xload and a regular variant. Defconfig files also have the tendency
> to bitrot very fast. Most defconfigs are committed once and never
> touched again which means you never get the new features and whenever
> you change the board you possibly find a defconfig that needs many
> adjustments before you feel home.
These all sounds like advantages for the multi-pbl system. I was asking
if the single pbl system had an advantage. It seems to be mostly a
duplication of multi-pbl that can't do as much. I wondered if there was
a reason, besides inertia, to keeping it around.
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-14 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-13 15:13 Wadim Egorov
2017-02-13 19:22 ` Sascha Hauer
2017-02-13 20:53 ` Trent Piepho
2017-02-14 7:27 ` Sascha Hauer
2017-02-14 18:12 ` Trent Piepho [this message]
2017-02-15 7:57 ` s.hauer
2017-02-14 9:54 ` Wadim Egorov
2017-02-14 10:48 ` Sascha Hauer
2017-02-14 11:34 ` Wadim Egorov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1487096017.20042.316.camel@kymetacorp.com \
--to=tpiepho@kymetacorp.com \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox