[meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using other
bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot versions
but same uboot name are used.

Example:
*bsp fsl: uboot_2012.10
*bsp X: uboot_git
If a fsl machine is used, the picked uboot will be the one from bsp X
- git version which is wrong.

So naming will make things clearer and not error prone.

Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com>
---
 .../{u-boot_2012.10.bb => u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb}   |    0
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 rename recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot_2012.10.bb => u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb} (100%)

diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2012.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
similarity index 100%
rename from recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2012.10.bb
rename to recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
-- 
1.7.9.5

[meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 2/3] u-boot-fsl: This recipe provides u-boot

[Andrei Gherzan]

Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com>
---
 recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb |    4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
index 5ee6920..7db9339 100644
--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
@@ -6,8 +6,10 @@ COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(imx28evk|mx3|mx5|mx6)"
 
 DEPENDS_mxs += "elftosb-native"
 
+PROVIDES += "u-boot"
+
 PV = "v2012.10"
-PR = "r1"
+PR = "r2"
 
 SRCREV = "8f78e9e9bd4c2471fdd03644058aed3038dcbf38"
 SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
-- 
1.7.9.5

[meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 3/3] fsl-default-providers.inc: u-boot recipe was renamed to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com>
---
 conf/machine/include/fsl-default-providers.inc |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/conf/machine/include/fsl-default-providers.inc b/conf/machine/include/fsl-default-providers.inc
index ef0805c..c1dadcf 100644
--- a/conf/machine/include/fsl-default-providers.inc
+++ b/conf/machine/include/fsl-default-providers.inc
@@ -3,4 +3,4 @@
 PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/xserver = "xserver-xorg"
 PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-imx"
 PREFERRED_PROVIDER_linux-libc-headers ?= "linux-libc-headers-imx"
-PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot ?= "u-boot"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot ?= "u-boot-fsl"
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1364 bytes --]

Hey,

Can we have these 3 patches series merged in danny too?

ag



On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andrei Gherzan <
andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> wrote:

> It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using other
> bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot versions
> but same uboot name are used.
>
> Example:
> *bsp fsl: uboot_2012.10
> *bsp X: uboot_git
> If a fsl machine is used, the picked uboot will be the one from bsp X
> - git version which is wrong.
>
> So naming will make things clearer and not error prone.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com>
> ---
>  .../{u-boot_2012.10.bb => u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb}   |    0
>  1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  rename recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot_2012.10.bb => u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb}
> (100%)
>
> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2012.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/
> u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
> similarity index 100%
> rename from recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2012.10.bb
> rename to recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2684 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

On 12/14/2012 10:00 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Can we have these 3 patches series merged in danny too?
Thanks for the patches. I haven't figured it before and it really makes 
sense.

Could you, please, send V2 using another name for recipe?

Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Daiane Angolini
<daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 10:00 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> Can we have these 3 patches series merged in danny too?
>
> Thanks for the patches. I haven't figured it before and it really makes
> sense.
>
> Could you, please, send V2 using another name for recipe?

Daiane,

Maybe the name choosen by Andrei could be kept. Let me explain ...

The point here is to avoid collision in namespace so the risk of
someone providing u-boot-mainline in a BSP or internal layer is higher
than u-boot-fsl and while this code is based on mainline code it has
some patches specific for us (like the environment changes for OE).

What do you think?

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 947 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On 12/14/2012 10:00 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> Can we have these 3 patches series merged in danny too?
> >
> > Thanks for the patches. I haven't figured it before and it really makes
> > sense.
> >
> > Could you, please, send V2 using another name for recipe?
>
> Daiane,
>
> Maybe the name choosen by Andrei could be kept. Let me explain ...
>
> The point here is to avoid collision in namespace so the risk of
> someone providing u-boot-mainline in a BSP or internal layer is higher
> than u-boot-fsl and while this code is based on mainline code it has
> some patches specific for us (like the environment changes for OE).
>
> What do you think?
>

Exactly my point. People use u-boot-mainline in other BSPs.
ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1427 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

On 12/14/2012 10:43 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> Exactly my point. People use u-boot-mainline in other BSPs.

Another option for u-boot recipe naming would be u-boot-fsl-cmnt or 
u-boot-fslc for fsl community.

Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 346 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Daiane Angolini <
daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:

> On 12/14/2012 10:43 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>
>> Exactly my point. People use u-boot-mainline in other BSPs.
>>
>
> Another option for u-boot recipe naming would be u-boot-fsl-cmnt or
> u-boot-fslc for fsl community.
>
>
+1 for fslc

ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 811 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

On 12/14/2012 10:41 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 10:00 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> Can we have these 3 patches series merged in danny too?
>>
>> Thanks for the patches. I haven't figured it before and it really makes
>> sense.
>>
>> Could you, please, send V2 using another name for recipe?
>
> Daiane,
>
> Maybe the name choosen by Andrei could be kept. Let me explain ...
>
> The point here is to avoid collision in namespace so the risk of
> someone providing u-boot-mainline in a BSP or internal layer is higher
> than u-boot-fsl and while this code is based on mainline code it has
> some patches specific for us (like the environment changes for OE).
>
> What do you think?

I don't agree u-boot-fsl is a good/clear name. But it's only a matter of 
naming. Anything else would be good. Let me explain:

currently we have:

1) u-boot from mainline plus some imx patches
2) u-boot from freescale (2009.08 - it's called u-boot-imx)

If there is any u-boot to be called FSL it would be the one provided by FSL.

So, I would propose

1) u-boot from mainline plus some imx patches = u-boot-imx
2) u-boot from freescale (2009.08) = u-boot-fsl


Or, in case you want to keep u-boot-imx as is, you can choose any other 
word to determinate 1), somethink like:

1) u-boot from mainline plus some imx patches = u-boot-github
2) u-boot from freescale (2009.08) = u-boot-imx


Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

On 12/14/2012 09:57 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote:
> It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using other
> bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot versions
> but same uboot name are used.
>
> Example:
> *bsp fsl: uboot_2012.10
> *bsp X: uboot_git
> If a fsl machine is used, the picked uboot will be the one from bsp X
> - git version which is wrong.
>
> So naming will make things clearer and not error prone.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com>
> ---
>   .../{u-boot_2012.10.bb => u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb}   |    0
>   1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>   rename recipes-bsp/u-boot/{u-boot_2012.10.bb => u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb} (100%)
>
> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2012.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
> similarity index 100%
> rename from recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2012.10.bb
> rename to recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fsl_2012.10.bb
I would suggest you to use u-boot-mainline_2012.10

This source code is not provided by freescale.

Other option would be denx instead of mainline.

Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Hi Andrei,

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:57:12 +0200,
Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> a écrit :

> It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using other
> bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot versions
> but same uboot name are used.
> 
why don't you simply add a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the u-boot recipe ?

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrei,
>
> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:57:12 +0200,
> Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> a écrit :
>
> > It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> > specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using other
> > bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot versions
> > but same uboot name are used.
> >
> why don't you simply add a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the u-boot recipe ?
>

It's not about our layer. It's about making this work with layers which
don't have that.

ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1133 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:56:11 +0200,
Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Andrei,
> >
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:57:12 +0200,
> > Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> a écrit :
> >
> > > It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> > > specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using other
> > > bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot versions
> > > but same uboot name are used.
> > >
> > why don't you simply add a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the u-boot recipe ?
> >
> 
> It's not about our layer. It's about making this work with layers which
> don't have that.
> 
that don't have what ?

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 947 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:

> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:56:11 +0200,
> Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :
>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Andrei,
> > >
> > > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:57:12 +0200,
> > > Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> a écrit :
> > >
> > > > It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> > > > specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using
> other
> > > > bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot
> versions
> > > > but same uboot name are used.
> > > >
> > > why don't you simply add a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the u-boot recipe ?
> > >
> >
> > It's not about our layer. It's about making this work with layers which
> > don't have that.
> >
> that don't have what ?
>

COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in their recipes.

ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1800 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:04:13 +0200,
Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> 
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:56:11 +0200,
> > Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Andrei,
> > > >
> > > > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:57:12 +0200,
> > > > Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@windriver.com> a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > > It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot even if it uses a repo
> > > > > specific to freescale boards. This would lead to issues while using
> > other
> > > > > bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm where different u-boot
> > versions
> > > > > but same uboot name are used.
> > > > >
> > > > why don't you simply add a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in the u-boot recipe ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's not about our layer. It's about making this work with layers which
> > > don't have that.
> > >
> > that don't have what ?
> >
> 
> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE in their recipes.
> 
then these BSP need to be fixed, else you may also start to rename
other recipes in meta-fsl-arm only because other BSP are faulty.

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:33 +0200,
Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :
> What if uboot will have a git version in oe-core in the future? Or a
> greater one. How would you fix that? I still think this is a good longterm
> solution.
> 
well, in that case the BSP recipe will be used as the layer has a higher
priority.

And to not have this kind of issue, you can simpy add the following
lines to your BSP's u-boot recipe :
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_machine = "1"

or simply change to a u-boot_git.bbappend to just append your machine
specific changes to oe-core's default recipe.

or add something like this in your BSP conf file :
PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-yocto"
PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto = "3.4%"

Check 1.2.9 in BSP Guide for examples on how this can be done (example
for linux-yocto but the use case is the same here).

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:33 +0200,
> Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :
>> What if uboot will have a git version in oe-core in the future? Or a
>> greater one. How would you fix that? I still think this is a good longterm
>> solution.
>>
> well, in that case the BSP recipe will be used as the layer has a higher
> priority.
>
> And to not have this kind of issue, you can simpy add the following
> lines to your BSP's u-boot recipe :
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_machine = "1"
>
> or simply change to a u-boot_git.bbappend to just append your machine
> specific changes to oe-core's default recipe.
>
> or add something like this in your BSP conf file :
> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-yocto"
> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto = "3.4%"
>
> Check 1.2.9 in BSP Guide for examples on how this can be done (example
> for linux-yocto but the use case is the same here).

I agree it is a possible way of doing it however I also think we
should opt for a safe route.

The Andrei's proposal make it harder to it to behave strangely so I
think it is a good option for long term. Another positive result of it
is that the new name makes clear we're not really using u-boot
mainline but mainline + patches. I support this change as it improves
the clearness for new users.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:14:54 -0200,
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:33 +0200,
> > Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :
> >> What if uboot will have a git version in oe-core in the future? Or a
> >> greater one. How would you fix that? I still think this is a good longterm
> >> solution.
> >>
> > well, in that case the BSP recipe will be used as the layer has a higher
> > priority.
> >
> > And to not have this kind of issue, you can simpy add the following
> > lines to your BSP's u-boot recipe :
> > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
> > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_machine = "1"
> >
> > or simply change to a u-boot_git.bbappend to just append your machine
> > specific changes to oe-core's default recipe.
> >
> > or add something like this in your BSP conf file :
> > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-yocto"
> > PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto = "3.4%"
> >
> > Check 1.2.9 in BSP Guide for examples on how this can be done (example
> > for linux-yocto but the use case is the same here).
> 
> I agree it is a possible way of doing it however I also think we
> should opt for a safe route.
> 
> The Andrei's proposal make it harder to it to behave strangely so I
> think it is a good option for long term. Another positive result of it
> is that the new name makes clear we're not really using u-boot
> mainline but mainline + patches. I support this change as it improves
> the clearness for new users.
> 
that's your choice but please note that you open the door to renaming
any recipe :
- either to workaround a problem in an other (or in your own) layer
  instead of really solving it
- or simply each time you add a patch to a recipe which then becomes non
  mainline !

IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:14:54 -0200,
> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
>> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:33 +0200,
>> > Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> a écrit :
>> >> What if uboot will have a git version in oe-core in the future? Or a
>> >> greater one. How would you fix that? I still think this is a good longterm
>> >> solution.
>> >>
>> > well, in that case the BSP recipe will be used as the layer has a higher
>> > priority.
>> >
>> > And to not have this kind of issue, you can simpy add the following
>> > lines to your BSP's u-boot recipe :
>> > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
>> > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_machine = "1"
>> >
>> > or simply change to a u-boot_git.bbappend to just append your machine
>> > specific changes to oe-core's default recipe.
>> >
>> > or add something like this in your BSP conf file :
>> > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-yocto"
>> > PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto = "3.4%"
>> >
>> > Check 1.2.9 in BSP Guide for examples on how this can be done (example
>> > for linux-yocto but the use case is the same here).
>>
>> I agree it is a possible way of doing it however I also think we
>> should opt for a safe route.
>>
>> The Andrei's proposal make it harder to it to behave strangely so I
>> think it is a good option for long term. Another positive result of it
>> is that the new name makes clear we're not really using u-boot
>> mainline but mainline + patches. I support this change as it improves
>> the clearness for new users.
>>
> that's your choice but please note that you open the door to renaming
> any recipe :
> - either to workaround a problem in an other (or in your own) layer
>   instead of really solving it
> - or simply each time you add a patch to a recipe which then becomes non
>   mainline !
>
> IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.

The only two recipes which are in this set are:

 u-boot
 linux-mainline

So my proposal is to use:

 u-boot-fslc
 linux-fslc

What are people thoughts about it?


--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

On 12/14/2012 01:33 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.
>
> The only two recipes which are in this set are:
>
>   u-boot
>   linux-mainline
>
> So my proposal is to use:
>
>   u-boot-fslc
>   linux-fslc
>
> What are people thoughts about it?


I see that we have 2 options.

One of then is the "most right" one - keep the name as is and teach 
everyone how to add a bbappend, and PREFERED_PROVIDER and 
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE for every single guy caming here because he has a 
u-boot recipe in their recipe.

In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to 
u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no 
need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.

How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.

If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely 
understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.

Daiane

Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Daiane Angolini
<daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 01:33 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.
>>
>>
>> The only two recipes which are in this set are:
>>
>>   u-boot
>>   linux-mainline
>>
>> So my proposal is to use:
>>
>>   u-boot-fslc
>>   linux-fslc
>>
>> What are people thoughts about it?
>
>
>
> I see that we have 2 options.
>
> One of then is the "most right" one - keep the name as is and teach everyone
> how to add a bbappend, and PREFERED_PROVIDER and DEFAULT_PREFERENCE for
> every single guy caming here because he has a u-boot recipe in their recipe.
>
> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to u-boot-somethingelse.
> This way, we have to face less support, and no need to teach anyone how to
> fix their layer.
>
> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
>
> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.

I simpatize your interpretation and this is my point of view as well.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1382 bytes --]

On Dec 14, 2012 6:53 PM, "Otavio Salvador" <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On 12/14/2012 01:33 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.
> >>
> >>
> >> The only two recipes which are in this set are:
> >>
> >>   u-boot
> >>   linux-mainline
> >>
> >> So my proposal is to use:
> >>
> >>   u-boot-fslc
> >>   linux-fslc
> >>
> >> What are people thoughts about it?
> >
> >
> >
> > I see that we have 2 options.
> >
> > One of then is the "most right" one - keep the name as is and teach
everyone
> > how to add a bbappend, and PREFERED_PROVIDER and DEFAULT_PREFERENCE for
> > every single guy caming here because he has a u-boot recipe in their
recipe.
> >
> > In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
u-boot-somethingelse.
> > This way, we have to face less support, and no need to teach anyone how
to
> > fix their layer.
> >
> > How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
> >
> > If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
> > understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
>
> I simpatize your interpretation and this is my point of view as well.
>

Otavio can you just add a "c" to "fsl" or need a v2?

Ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2009 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Andrei Gherzan <andrei@gherzan.ro> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2012 6:53 PM, "Otavio Salvador" <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Daiane Angolini
>> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> > On 12/14/2012 01:33 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The only two recipes which are in this set are:
>> >>
>> >>   u-boot
>> >>   linux-mainline
>> >>
>> >> So my proposal is to use:
>> >>
>> >>   u-boot-fslc
>> >>   linux-fslc
>> >>
>> >> What are people thoughts about it?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I see that we have 2 options.
>> >
>> > One of then is the "most right" one - keep the name as is and teach
>> > everyone
>> > how to add a bbappend, and PREFERED_PROVIDER and DEFAULT_PREFERENCE for
>> > every single guy caming here because he has a u-boot recipe in their
>> > recipe.
>> >
>> > In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
>> > u-boot-somethingelse.
>> > This way, we have to face less support, and no need to teach anyone how
>> > to
>> > fix their layer.
>> >
>> > How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
>> >
>> > If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
>> > understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
>>
>> I simpatize your interpretation and this is my point of view as well.
>>
>
> Otavio can you just add a "c" to "fsl" or need a v2?

Please send a v2 with this. This would be easier for me.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to 
> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no 
> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
> 
> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
> 
> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely 
> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
> 
how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
here ?

BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or bbappend is
its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas you
add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
> Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
>> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
>> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no
>> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
>>
>> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
>>
>> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
>> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
>>
> how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
> here ?
>
> BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or bbappend is
> its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas you
> add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?

The real difference here is how ofthen someone will need to override a
qt recipe, for something board specific, and how ofthen it will be for
u-boot/kernel. I bet the former will be much more rare.

Most BSP ports, for customers, will involve kernel and u-boot changes
and ofthen enough you'll have an specific repository for your
u-boot/kernel so an u-boot-<customer> will be common in internal BSPs
and layers. We do it for our customers, I bet WR does the same.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:34 -0200,
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
> > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
> >> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
> >> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no
> >> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
> >>
> >> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
> >>
> >> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
> >> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
> >>
> > how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
> > here ?
> >
> > BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or bbappend is
> > its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas you
> > add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?
> 
> The real difference here is how ofthen someone will need to override a
> qt recipe, for something board specific, and how ofthen it will be for
> u-boot/kernel. I bet the former will be much more rare.
> 
having a bbappend for qt is not rare especially when needing to
customize qt's configuration.

> Most BSP ports, for customers, will involve kernel and u-boot changes
> and ofthen enough you'll have an specific repository for your
> u-boot/kernel so an u-boot-<customer> will be common in internal BSPs
> and layers. We do it for our customers, I bet WR does the same.
> 
that's the magic of oe we can have very different way to handle a same
problem.

Eric

[meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

Em 14/12/2012 16:22, "Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com> escreveu:
>
> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:34 -0200,
> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
> > > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
> > >> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
> > >> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no
> > >> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
> > >>
> > >> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
> > >>
> > >> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
> > >> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
> > >>
> > > how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
> > > here ?
> > >
> > > BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or bbappend is
> > > its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas you
> > > add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?
> >
> > The real difference here is how ofthen someone will need to override a
> > qt recipe, for something board specific, and how ofthen it will be for
> > u-boot/kernel. I bet the former will be much more rare.
> >
> having a bbappend for qt is not rare especially when needing to
> customize qt's configuration.
>
> > Most BSP ports, for customers, will involve kernel and u-boot changes
> > and ofthen enough you'll have an specific repository for your
> > u-boot/kernel so an u-boot-<customer> will be common in internal BSPs
> > and layers. We do it for our customers, I bet WR does the same.
> >
> that's the magic of oe we can have very different way to handle a same
> problem.

I have one question. Why is there no "linux" recipe on meta-fsl-arm today?

I'm tryng to decide which side to choose.

(With the last argument Eric got me, but I'm trying to avoid a 2x2 scenario)

Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2246 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com>wrote:

> Em 14/12/2012 16:22, "Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com> escreveu:
> >
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:34 -0200,
> > Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > > > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
> > > > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
> > > >> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
> > > >> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no
> > > >> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
> > > >>
> > > >> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
> > > >>
> > > >> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I
> completely
> > > >> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my
> interpretation.
> > > >>
> > > > how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
> > > > here ?
> > > >
> > > > BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or
> bbappend is
> > > > its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas
> you
> > > > add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?
> > >
> > > The real difference here is how ofthen someone will need to override a
> > > qt recipe, for something board specific, and how ofthen it will be for
> > > u-boot/kernel. I bet the former will be much more rare.
> > >
> > having a bbappend for qt is not rare especially when needing to
> > customize qt's configuration.
> >
> > > Most BSP ports, for customers, will involve kernel and u-boot changes
> > > and ofthen enough you'll have an specific repository for your
> > > u-boot/kernel so an u-boot-<customer> will be common in internal BSPs
> > > and layers. We do it for our customers, I bet WR does the same.
> > >
> > that's the magic of oe we can have very different way to handle a same
> > problem.
>
> I have one question. Why is there no "linux" recipe on meta-fsl-arm today?
>
> I'm tryng to decide which side to choose.
>
> (With the last argument Eric got me, but I'm trying to avoid a 2x2
> scenario)
>

Your question is an argument for me.

ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3201 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:08:06 -0200,
Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I have one question. Why is there no "linux" recipe on meta-fsl-arm today?
> 
because Otavio named it linux-mainline when he created it.

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> Em 14/12/2012 16:22, "Eric Bénard" <eric@eukrea.com> escreveu:
>>
>> Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:12:34 -0200,
>> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>>
>> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
>> > > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:50:07 -0200,
>> > > Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> a écrit :
>> > >> In the other hand, we may rename our u-boot recipe to
>> > >> u-boot-somethingelse. This way, we have to face less support, and no
>> > >> need to teach anyone how to fix their layer.
>> > >>
>> > >> How I'm lazy, I would choose the renaming option.
>> > >>
>> > >> If I'm wrong on any point, please let me know. I'm not sure I completely
>> > >> understand the issue here, so I may be simplistic in my interpretation.
>> > >>
>> > > how often have you seen a support request concerning a u-boot problem
>> > > here ?
>> > >
>> > > BTW, you will have some issues if someone has a qt recipe or bbappend is
>> > > its overlay so why don't you also rename qt to qt-fslc (espaciallyas you
>> > > add a patch to it in meta-fsl-arm so it's no more mainline) ?
>> >
>> > The real difference here is how ofthen someone will need to override a
>> > qt recipe, for something board specific, and how ofthen it will be for
>> > u-boot/kernel. I bet the former will be much more rare.
>> >
>> having a bbappend for qt is not rare especially when needing to
>> customize qt's configuration.
>>
>> > Most BSP ports, for customers, will involve kernel and u-boot changes
>> > and ofthen enough you'll have an specific repository for your
>> > u-boot/kernel so an u-boot-<customer> will be common in internal BSPs
>> > and layers. We do it for our customers, I bet WR does the same.
>> >
>> that's the magic of oe we can have very different way to handle a same
>> problem.
>
> I have one question. Why is there no "linux" recipe on meta-fsl-arm today?
>
> I'm tryng to decide which side to choose.
>
> (With the last argument Eric got me, but I'm trying to avoid a 2x2 scenario)

Did you choose a side? :-)

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Eric Bénard]

Hi,

Le Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:04:54 -0200,
Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
> Did you choose a side? :-)
> 
as I said to Andrei off list : if the comment was "rename u-boot to
u-boot-fslc as we find it better to show that this recipe builds
u-boot + freescale's patches", then that's a cosmetic choice and not a
technical issue.

But the commit log is "It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot
even if it uses a repo specific to freescale boards. This would lead to
issues while using other bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm
where different u-boot versions but same uboot name are used." : it is a
false isssue and can be solved with an other way (more nice and clean
IMHO) than renaming the recipe, especially with the example provided in
the comment which clearly shows a problem in bsp X.
Getting this issue means bsp X's u-boot_git recipe which is not
designed to properly work with other BSP (and so you can expect other
issues with other recipes this BSP may include so in my daily usage,
unless I have time to analyze all the files in this BSP X, I would
certainly exclude it from my common builds and keep it in its own build
area to not take the risk to get unwanted changes from the faulty BSP).

I hope this is more clear now.

Eric

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:04:54 -0200,
> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>> Did you choose a side? :-)
>>
> as I said to Andrei off list : if the comment was "rename u-boot to
> u-boot-fslc as we find it better to show that this recipe builds
> u-boot + freescale's patches", then that's a cosmetic choice and not a
> technical issue.

I should have choosen a better name when adding u-boot recipe; the
u-boot name gives the wrong impression it takes the source from DENX
(mainline) but it is not the case.

> But the commit log is "It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot
> even if it uses a repo specific to freescale boards. This would lead to
> issues while using other bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm
> where different u-boot versions but same uboot name are used."

I agree it can be reworded.

> : it is a
> false isssue and can be solved with an other way (more nice and clean
> IMHO) than renaming the recipe, especially with the example provided in
> the comment which clearly shows a problem in bsp X.
> Getting this issue means bsp X's u-boot_git recipe which is not
> designed to properly work with other BSP (and so you can expect other
> issues with other recipes this BSP may include so in my daily usage,
> unless I have time to analyze all the files in this BSP X, I would
> certainly exclude it from my common builds and keep it in its own build
> area to not take the risk to get unwanted changes from the faulty BSP).
>
> I hope this is more clear now.

Yes; I agree BSP X is broken but I'd also like to be clear about the
u-boot and linux recipes not being pure mainline (yet).

So Andrei can reword the commit log (not suggesting BSP X or Y are
right or wrong) but renaming for clearness. Can we go this route?

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Andrei Gherzan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2086 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br>wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:04:54 -0200,
> > Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
> >> Did you choose a side? :-)
> >>
> > as I said to Andrei off list : if the comment was "rename u-boot to
> > u-boot-fslc as we find it better to show that this recipe builds
> > u-boot + freescale's patches", then that's a cosmetic choice and not a
> > technical issue.
>
> I should have choosen a better name when adding u-boot recipe; the
> u-boot name gives the wrong impression it takes the source from DENX
> (mainline) but it is not the case.
>
> > But the commit log is "It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot
> > even if it uses a repo specific to freescale boards. This would lead to
> > issues while using other bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm
> > where different u-boot versions but same uboot name are used."
>
> I agree it can be reworded.
>
> > : it is a
> > false isssue and can be solved with an other way (more nice and clean
> > IMHO) than renaming the recipe, especially with the example provided in
> > the comment which clearly shows a problem in bsp X.
> > Getting this issue means bsp X's u-boot_git recipe which is not
> > designed to properly work with other BSP (and so you can expect other
> > issues with other recipes this BSP may include so in my daily usage,
> > unless I have time to analyze all the files in this BSP X, I would
> > certainly exclude it from my common builds and keep it in its own build
> > area to not take the risk to get unwanted changes from the faulty BSP).
> >
> > I hope this is more clear now.
>
> Yes; I agree BSP X is broken but I'd also like to be clear about the
> u-boot and linux recipes not being pure mainline (yet).
>
> So Andrei can reword the commit log (not suggesting BSP X or Y are
> right or wrong) but renaming for clearness. Can we go this route?
>
>
Roger and obeying... :)

ag

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2811 bytes --]

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Daiane Angolini]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:04:54 -0200,
>> Otavio Salvador <otavio@ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
>>> Did you choose a side? :-)
>>>
>> as I said to Andrei off list : if the comment was "rename u-boot to
>> u-boot-fslc as we find it better to show that this recipe builds
>> u-boot + freescale's patches", then that's a cosmetic choice and not a
>> technical issue.
>
> I should have choosen a better name when adding u-boot recipe; the
> u-boot name gives the wrong impression it takes the source from DENX
> (mainline) but it is not the case.
>
>> But the commit log is "It's not right to have a recipe named as uboot
>> even if it uses a repo specific to freescale boards. This would lead to
>> issues while using other bsp layers in conjunction to meta-fsl-arm
>> where different u-boot versions but same uboot name are used."
>
> I agree it can be reworded.
>
>> : it is a
>> false isssue and can be solved with an other way (more nice and clean
>> IMHO) than renaming the recipe, especially with the example provided in
>> the comment which clearly shows a problem in bsp X.
>> Getting this issue means bsp X's u-boot_git recipe which is not
>> designed to properly work with other BSP (and so you can expect other
>> issues with other recipes this BSP may include so in my daily usage,
>> unless I have time to analyze all the files in this BSP X, I would
>> certainly exclude it from my common builds and keep it in its own build
>> area to not take the risk to get unwanted changes from the faulty BSP).
>>
>> I hope this is more clear now.
>
> Yes; I agree BSP X is broken but I'd also like to be clear about the
> u-boot and linux recipes not being pure mainline (yet).
>
> So Andrei can reword the commit log (not suggesting BSP X or Y are
> right or wrong) but renaming for clearness. Can we go this route?

I´m happy you decided what was the main problem of this situation.

Now I need to know how to name "linux-mainline". I´ve been cooking 3.7
recipe and I will send a patch in a while. I want to know how to name
it.

I still think it´s weird not having a "u-boot" and a "linux" recipe. I
was looking around other meta layers and everyone have it.

In the other hand, meta-fsl-arm does support 2 u-boots and 2 kernels
(mainline and FSL), so, maybe having a description name for both would
be better.


Daiane

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
...
>> So Andrei can reword the commit log (not suggesting BSP X or Y are
>> right or wrong) but renaming for clearness. Can we go this route?
>
> I´m happy you decided what was the main problem of this situation.
>
> Now I need to know how to name "linux-mainline". I´ve been cooking 3.7
> recipe and I will send a patch in a while. I want to know how to name
> it.

I'd say for you to call it linux-fslc as proposed for u-boot as well.
So we'll be consistent regarding the recipes that use github as
source.

> I still think it´s weird not having a "u-boot" and a "linux" recipe. I
> was looking around other meta layers and everyone have it.
>
> In the other hand, meta-fsl-arm does support 2 u-boots and 2 kernels
> (mainline and FSL), so, maybe having a description name for both would
> be better.

Yes; that's my thought too. I like to be clear about where to source
come from and generic names goes in opposed direction.

Regards,

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

Can we differentiate from u-boot fsl arm and ppc? Different teams
produce the two versions.

-M

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Daiane Angolini <daiane.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Otavio Salvador
>> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> ...
>>> So Andrei can reword the commit log (not suggesting BSP X or Y are
>>> right or wrong) but renaming for clearness. Can we go this route?
>>
>> I´m happy you decided what was the main problem of this situation.
>>
>> Now I need to know how to name "linux-mainline". I´ve been cooking 3.7
>> recipe and I will send a patch in a while. I want to know how to name
>> it.
>
> I'd say for you to call it linux-fslc as proposed for u-boot as well.
> So we'll be consistent regarding the recipes that use github as
> source.
>
>> I still think it´s weird not having a "u-boot" and a "linux" recipe. I
>> was looking around other meta layers and everyone have it.
>>
>> In the other hand, meta-fsl-arm does support 2 u-boots and 2 kernels
>> (mainline and FSL), so, maybe having a description name for both would
>> be better.
>
> Yes; that's my thought too. I like to be clear about where to source
> come from and generic names goes in opposed direction.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
> E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
> Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br
> _______________________________________________
> meta-freescale mailing list
> meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> Can we differentiate from u-boot fsl arm and ppc? Different teams
> produce the two versions.

We ended calling it u-boot-fslc; as fslc stands for Freescale
Community as this is the one kept in github with mainline plus
patches.

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Otavio Salvador
<otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
>> Can we differentiate from u-boot fsl arm and ppc? Different teams
>> produce the two versions.
>
> We ended calling it u-boot-fslc; as fslc stands for Freescale
> Community as this is the one kept in github with mainline plus
> patches.

Do the FSL ARM folks produce another tree or use this one for OE
related purposes?

Right now in meta-fsl-ppc we call ours 'u-boot' still even though it's
DENX + non-upstreamed patches (that we still intend to upstream)

-M

Re: [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl

[Otavio Salvador]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:46 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
<B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
>> <B29882@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> Can we differentiate from u-boot fsl arm and ppc? Different teams
>>> produce the two versions.
>>
>> We ended calling it u-boot-fslc; as fslc stands for Freescale
>> Community as this is the one kept in github with mainline plus
>> patches.
>
> Do the FSL ARM folks produce another tree or use this one for OE
> related purposes?

FSL ARM folks has u-boot-imx based in 2009 version of u-boot. This is
the official u-boot version supported by then in their BSP but in fact
all boards here default to u-boot-fslc in OE and we keep u-boot-imx
only as fallback if someone needs.

> Right now in meta-fsl-ppc we call ours 'u-boot' still even though it's
> DENX + non-upstreamed patches (that we still intend to upstream)

Yes, we had a heat discussion  about it last days. We tried to avoid
u-boot name so it is clear it is not DENX version and give a good
example on how to have a specific version of u-boot packaged or
developer will need to mangle with preferred versions and like.
There's no right or wrong here but preference ...

--
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br