Index | Thread | Search

From:
Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org>
Subject:
Re: sysuitls/u-boot/sun50i
To:
Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Cc:
ports@openbsd.org, patrick@openbsd.org, jca@openbsd.org, jsg@openbsd.org, uaa@openbsd.org
Date:
Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:58:45 +0000

Download raw body.

Thread
On 2024/02/20 16:40, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 14:47:05 +0000
> > From: Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org>
> > 
> > On 2024/02/20 14:53, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > This splits out the sun50i boards from the aarch64 package, updates
> > > the U-Boot version for those boards and includes the new crust SCP
> > > firmware in the image.  The new sun50i package is provided as tgz
> > > file; the diff removes the relevant boards from the aarch64 package.
> > 
> > PLIST will need these changes:
> > 
> > -@pkgpath sysutils/u-boot-pinebook
> > -@pkgpath sysutils/u-boot,aarch64
> > +@conflict u-boot-aarch64-<2021.10p9
> 
> Thanks!  That means the install of u-boot-sun50i will fail untile
> u-boot-aarch64 has been updated to version 2021.10p9 isn't it?

Yes.

> > DESCR probably wants slight tweaking, currently it has
> > "This package provides U-Boot for various boards using ARM processors."
> 
> Ah yes, I'll tweak that.

(OK sthen@ with those changes)

> > > My idea is to import the sun50i (onhooked to the build) and then apply
> > > the diff.
> > > 
> > > I probably need some help to make pkg_add -u do the right thing.  For
> > > the previous diff that split things up, sthen@ told me to add some
> > > magic @pkgpath lines.
> > 
> > If we want "pkg_add u-boot-aarch64" to still install of the various
> > aarch64 U-Boot packages, that can be done by adding this to
> > u-boot/aarch64 and bumping REVISION -
> > 
> > RUN_DEPENDS=	sysutils/u-boot/rk356x \
> > 		sysutils/u-boot/rk3588 \
> > 		sysutils/u-boot/sun50i
> > 
> > Doing this would mean that release builders shouldn't need to change
> > their existing workflow, which is probably helpful.
> 
> We stopped adding the pine64 u-boot onto the installation media.  So
> this shouldn't be necessary.  So it would merely be a convenience to
> users who have already installed u-boot-aarch64 but will now have to
> install u-boot-sun50i if the have a 64-bit Allwinner ARM board.  I
> think I'm not going to bother unless someone convinces me to do
> otherwise.

Ah I think that's fine then.