Skip to content

build with EXTRAVERSION to add the MNT Reform git tag into the u-boot version string

Johannes Schauer Marin Rodriguesrequested to merge
josch/reform-rk3588-uboot:extraversion into main

This sets the EXTRAVERSION make variable in a similar way as it's already done for imx8mq, imx8m+ and a311d (but not ls1028a) u-boot. In the CI artifacts built by the pipeline associated to this MR, the version now looks like this:

U-Boot SPL 2024.10 MNT Reform 2025-05-06-4-g1771761-g424c714eb247-dirty (Oct 26 2025 - 06:14:03 +0000)

The "MNT Reform 2025-05-06-4-g1771761" part is what was added in comparison to before. The "g424c714eb247-dirty" part is a "git describe" performed by the u-boot build system and the git hash is the hash of u-boot git and not of reform-rk3588-uboot git. The "dirty" is because we apply 3 patches. Patch 0002 just needs upstreaming.

I changed one thing in comparison to the format used in imx8mq, imx8m+ and a311d u-boot: Instead of printing the latest git tag, this change calls git describe in a way which adds the latest tag and the git hash. The hash will not appear in the version if the build is done for a commit that has a git tag attached to it. In that case, the format will be the same as for imx8mq, imx8m+ and a311d u-boot. One advantage is, that building a custom u-boot will always contain a unique identifier. The other is, that in contrast to imx8mq, imx8m+ and a311d u-boot, the build system does not include a check whether EXTRAVERSION was correctly set and fail the build if not. The last part caused some frustration in the past. I have two questions:

  1. would you like me to submit merge requests for imx8mq, imx8m+ and a311d u-boot which change the EXTRAVERSION handling and format to the one which is now used here or should I rather change this MR to use the EXTRAVERSION handling used elsewhere? I'd prefer the former.
  2. the string contains "MNT Reform" which used to be a good choice when there only was the MNT Reform but maybe this should be shortened to just "MNT" now that there is also the Pocket Reform and Reform Next? Or, alternatively, since u-boot is machine specific anyways, maybe it'd be even nicer to let the u-boot binary say "MNT Reform 2", "MNT Pocket Reform" or "MNT Reform Next" depending on the machine?

Merge request reports