Zoltan Baldaszti has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45482 )
Change subject: payloads/external: add support for BOOTBOOT payload ......................................................................
Patch Set 3:
(2 comments)
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45482/2/payloads/external/BOOTBOOT/... File payloads/external/BOOTBOOT/Makefile:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45482/2/payloads/external/BOOTBOOT/... PS2, Line 23: @test -d ../../../../bootboot && ln -s ../../../../bootboot 2>/dev/null || true
This looks like a very local solution, maybe not suited for upstreaming?
This is the case when the bootboot git repository is cloned to the same directory as the coreboot repository. Then there's no point in cloning it again under payloads/BOOTBOOT too. It's a local thing sure, but I think having multiple git repositories in the same directory is common enough. I can remove this if you'd like, but I don't think it hurts anyone.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/45482/2/payloads/external/BOOTBOOT/... PS2, Line 29: git remote update ) )
Doing this as the last step looks odd. It wouldn't do anything to the […]
Actually this part comes from the FILO external payload's Makefile. I'm okay if the repo is not updated, because a) I don't think it's going to change that much b) I don't think it is the compilation's job to refresh the code anyway (it is okay to clone the code at first, but keeping up-to-date is totally different thing IMHO). Let me know if you decide to remove this.