When building the arm-trusted-firmware, if the host environment has a value
configured in the BL31 variable such as the following:
export BL31=/tmp/bl31.elf
This will cause the build of the bl31.elf to be skipped leading to the
following build error:
make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'bl31'.
And then:
readelf: Error: './output/build/arm-trusted-firmware-custom/build/versal/release/bl31/bl31.elf': No such file
To fix this, clear the BL31 variable in the MAKE_OPTS, so that building the
arm-trusted-firmware will build regardless of the host environment.
Signed-off-by: Neal Frager <neal.frager@amd.com>
Tested-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
Reviewed-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Boost.System is a header only library since Boost 1.69.0 [0].
A Stub Library remained for backward compatibility. This
mainly affects CMake Packages that use FindPackage and
explicitly list 'system'.
For Boost internal modules this is not the case so remove this
dependency.
Buildroot packages should select BR2_PACKAGE_BOOST_SYSTEM explicitly
if needed and not rely on a proxy dependency from other boost packages.
[0] https://github.com/boostorg/system/blob/develop/doc/system/changes.adoc#changes-in-boost-169
Signed-off-by: Michael Nosthoff <buildroot@heine.tech>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
libcpprestsdk searches for the Boost.System module in its
CMakeLists. Hence it should be selected as a dependency.
This does not fix any build failure, as boost-system was implicitly
selected by one of the other boost-* options that this package
selects, but an upcoming commit is going to change how boost-system is
selected by other boost-* modules, making this preparation change
necessary.
Signed-off-by: Michael Nosthoff <buildroot@heine.tech>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
This does not make debug info available, but allows building programs
that link against libdebuginfod.
Signed-off-by: Fiona Klute (WIWA) <fiona.klute@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
On Debian 13 doc generation fails. Disable it like for
the target.
Signed-off-by: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
With the introduction of the production silicon Icicle Kit comes the
need to support multiple board device trees. The HSS puts a minimal dtb
in it's payload's ancillary-data immediately after U-Boot in memory.
CONFIG_OF_BOARD will use this dtb that the HSS carries with the bare
minimum of nodes enabled. It allows for firmware to provide the address
of the devicetree in memory using the `a1` register.
Use the device tree compatible from the hart software services to
essentially "detect" which board is in use and therefore select the
appropiate device tree for the board.
Add a fdt production node to the .its referencing the production Icicle
Kit DTB with appropriate attributes. Introduce matching configuration
entries to enable selection of the production Icicle kit FDT blob for
the MPFS Icicle Production Silicon board.
Update the configuration names to match the device tree compatibles for
each board configuration. With these updates, change image node and
configuration node names with more appropriate names.
Signed-off-by: Jamie Gibbons <jamie.gibbons@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Following Microchip's Linux 2025.07 release, update the assets to the
latest versions, this includes a Linux version bump and addditional
U-Boot drivers and functionality. Update the Linux headers to support
the updated v6.12 kernel. Update the corresponding package hashes.
Signed-off-by: Jamie Gibbons <jamie.gibbons@microchip.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Buildroot commit d6c3257e93 bumped the
package from 0.21 to 0.23. Upstream release 0.22 includes commit
d7c7c53c06
which uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC without including time.h.
Fixes:
https://autobuild.buildroot.net/results/41b/41b25ee8e66e34323eca011e4b5fe479ece9ed76/
Two minimal defconfigs to reproduce the build error:
BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_UCLIBC=y
BR2_PTHREADS_NONE=y
BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_CXX=y
BR2_PACKAGE_ATF=y
BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_UCLIBC=y
BR2_PTHREADS_NONE=y
BR2_GCC_VERSION_13_X=y
BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_CXX=y
BR2_PACKAGE_ATF=y
All defconfigs of the build errors recorded by the buildroot autobuilders
contain BR2_PTHREADS_NONE=y.
Signed-off-by: Bernd Kuhls <bernd@kuhls.net>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Update to the latest version of the gcnano-binaries blobs, which are
compatible with the last v6.6-stm32mp-r2 kernel from the
STMicroelectronics BSP.
Signed-off-by: Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
The Vulkan option was appended to QT6BASE_CONFIGURE_OPTS instead of
QT6BASE_CONF_OPTS, which is the variable actually used during CMake
configuration. This prevented the feature from being enabled/disabled
as expected.
Fixes: 1c27f3a12d ("package/qt6base: add vulkan option")
Signed-off-by: Dario Binacchi <dario.binacchi@amarulasolutions.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
This commit adds "kibi" a configurable text editor with UTF-8 support,
incremental search, syntax highlighting, line numbers and more, written
in less than 1024 lines of Rust with minimal dependencies.
https://github.com/ilai-deutel/kibi
Signed-off-by: Alexander Shirokov <shirokovalexs@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Since the introduction of duktape in [1]. This package has been present
under the "JavaScript" sub-menu.
This sub-menu was mostly used for JS libraries and programs so duktape
should have been under the "Interpreter languages and scripting"
submenu.
Since duktape is now the only entry in the JavaScript submenu, move this
package to a better suited place and remove the JavaScript submenu.
[1] 387ff26b6d duktape: new package
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Because the way JavaScript project development is working the chances that your
project is using the same version of the buildroot package, and you provide
this library from `/var/www` to your users is actually really low ...
If you want to bundle JavaScript libraries in your project you should probably
either use a cdn, handle the package version and location of your choice in
your external or overlay, or just bundle it in your assets from a NPM workflow
to benefit from some minifications from your bundler.
Historically many of those JavaScript libraries were added in the 2010 eras
where it could make sense for them to be part of Buildroot.
Most of them are also way outdated/not maintained.
For more informations see https://elinux.org/Buildroot:DeveloperDaysELCE2025
Signed-off-by: Thomas Perale <thomas.perale@mind.be>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
