barebox PBL question

[Trent Piepho]

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.