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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
