Re: Additional / new BSP collection?

[Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>]

On 07/27/11 10:23, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 08:55 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Hi Kumar,
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>
>> What I'm envisioning as a start is we'd offer a meta layer on yocto
>> sites for the upstream supported boards&  feature set.
>>
>> I'm still looking at what we do for a FSL delivered BSP (via
>> freescale.com) that would be based on that.  My initial concerns are
>> that the yocto community will probably move and change things too
>> frequently for our customer base (kernel version, toolchain version,
>> etc).  Thus my thinking of de-coupling the two a bit.  The yocto
>> versions of BSPs would track yocto development.  The FSL delivered
>> BSPs would probably track to an older yocto version&  slower update
>> cycle.
>
> Just for reference, this is exactly what meta-intel intends to do. The
> released versions of the code there are based on a specific release of
> Yocto/OE-Core. When new BSPs are developed they are likely developed on
> the last stable release of Yocto, not bleeding edge master unless there
> is some pressing reason to do so.

Most definitely. Having some sort of alignment on the
kernel versions is nice, but we definitely don't expect
all BSPs to follow every new kernel.

And like Richard said, the model you are thinking about
makes a lot of sense.

If we nominate some important BSPs (one of my post 1.1 tasks),
and they get into the yocto-kernel tree, you have the
advantage that when I uprev the kernel they largely get hauled
along for the ride.

Cheers,

Brice

>
> This is where we start to see major benefits of the layer model.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>