Re: New IXP4XX-based Machine

[Rod Whitby <rod@whitby.id.au>]

Mark Gollahon wrote:
> Rod Whitby wrote ..
>> That was a bug in the newly rewritten ixp4xx conf which I believe is now
>> fixed.
> 
> Great!  When was the diff applied?  I'd like to get it.

Probably on Sunday:
Commit by rwhitby on org.oe.dev :: r0e933978... / (26 files in 10 dirs):
ixp4xx-related files: Replaced IXP4XX_MACHINE_ENDIAN with
SITEINFO_ENDIANESS throughout OE, removing all instances of
ixp4xx-specific ENDIAN checks in the OE metadata.

> Right now its not much more than a bunch of MACHINE_EXTRA_RDEPENDS and
> MACHINE_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS settings thanks to your changes.  However, there
> is an embedded four-port eth switch chip in the box.  Since the
> manufacturer had to patch a number of areas in the Intel drivers to get it
> to work originally, I am expecting to have to do the same with the GPL
> ixp4xx eth drivers.  That would mean kernel patches, which would probably
> mean its own kernel .bb, etc.

Actually, it would be good for you to talk to the GPL ethernet driver
author, and get those patches upstream.

> From what I've seen of OE, it seems easier
> to support a new machine .conf along with its own kernel .bb than trying
> to shim a new kernel config in an old machine .conf (oh, BTW, to build for
> *this machine*, you have to use *that machine's* .conf file, but make
> PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel be *this*).  Newbies are already 
> overwhelmed by OE's sheer configurability, throwing yet another exception
> in on this just doesn't seem right to me.

Agreed.  What's the machine?  Got any internal photos ;-)

>> I'm willing to work with you to get this right.
> 
> I know - thank you.  I just wish I had discovered what was the issue with
> building the root filesys image before now....

Let's work together, and make sure that ixp4xx{be,le}.conf are files
that can be used for (included in) a number of such machine configurations.

-- Rod