From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D00E4C803E4 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:52:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6RDqMii030257; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:52:22 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 30197-01; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:52:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6RDqDvD030251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:52:14 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Bruce Ashfield In-Reply-To: <4E3012D8.3080106@windriver.com> References: <1311756356.2344.332.camel@rex> <66F46EDD-010E-41CC-BE5E-196894B3BA22@kernel.crashing.org> <4E3012D8.3080106@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:52:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1311774723.2344.373.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: Yocto discussion list Subject: Re: Additional / new BSP collection? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:52:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:30 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > As you know, I've been working on several kernel efforts > around the FSL parts as well (in particular the ones that > have enough pieces upstream to work out of the box). I > definitely don't want to overlap in a way that doesn't > create complimentary efforts. > > What are your current thoughts around kernels and the > (nearly religious) kernel version question ? It would be > great to get some alignment on features (-rt, tracing, > boot, footprint reduction, etc, etc) and save some effort > on maintenance and validation. Also if we want to create > some yocto reference BSPs, having a kernel version and feature > set match is important as well (i.e. what we've done for > the intel ones). > > To that end, do you have an thoughts about using linux-yocto > as a base to any BSP work ? That statement doesn't do it > justice though, since when I say 'use linux-yocto as a base', > it really means that linux-yocto uses your BSPs as an > upstream/official reference and can pull support for them > into branches, and have the configuration and other tooling > get them any functionality that is being developed. > > No control over BSP content, or anything like this, is being > suggested or asserted here. Just looking to all push in the > same direction (embedded features and BSPs to upstream) and > re-use the work of BSPs available in the community. If the > base is the same (and hence kernel version), then this relationship > and workflow is very simple. > > ... and as a bonus, if the workflow doesn't work easily, then > there's a problem with it and we can work on something that > is suitable (change tools, etc). So just to put what Bruce says into other words, there isn't any hard requirement to use linux-yocto but we are asking people to try it and if it doesn't work, at least tell us why. I understand transitions and new ways of working take time and that meta-fsl-ppc might be enough of a step at first without the linux-yocto complications. That is fine but please do keep it in mind. Cheers, Richard