From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645484C800A1 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:05:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p6RF37FT022343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:05:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.146.67] (128.224.146.67) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:04:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4E3028EF.2000302@windriver.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:04:15 -0400 From: Bruce Ashfield User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11 ThunderBrowse/3.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala References: <0871F19F-E6BF-481E-920E-87091DEF7F49@kernel.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <0871F19F-E6BF-481E-920E-87091DEF7F49@kernel.crashing.org> Cc: Yocto discussion list Subject: Re: BSP in meta layer vs poky 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 15:05:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 07/27/11 10:23, Kumar Gala wrote: > I was wondering what distinction qualified for a BSP existing in a meta layer vs in poky directly. > > For FSL PPC we currently have MPC8315-RDB in poky. Ideally we'd have one BSP for each major flavor [ associated with a unique compiler / libc target ]. This would end up being something like P2020-RDB (e500v2 core), P204x-RDB (e500mc core), P5020DS (e5500 core - 32/64 bit). This sort of coverage would be great, and your options would be the big ones on my hit list as well. It allows us to at the least ensure that the build coverage is complete. > > Than everything else would live in the meta-fsl-ppc layer. This makes sense as well. There are some other options. The BSPs that you see embedded in meta-yocto could all be split out into layers. It's largely a matter of time, effort and benefit. There is the risk of over segmentation and 'layerization', but we aren't there yet. The point I'm trying to make here is that if a BSP aligns with linux-yocto and is one that we are actively using as a reference, it can be directly in meta-yocto or in another layer and it will work equally well. Cheers, Bruce > > - k > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto