BSP in meta layer vs poky

BSP in meta layer vs poky

[Kumar Gala]

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).

Than everything else would live in the meta-fsl-ppc layer.

- k

Re: BSP in meta layer vs poky

[Bruce Ashfield]

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

Re: BSP in meta layer vs poky

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:23 -0500, 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).
> 
> Than everything else would live in the meta-fsl-ppc layer.

The original criteria for what we included was:

* One board per architecture
* Should be available to a general developer in a relatively cost 
  effective manner (sub $1000?)
* Lets us test functionality of the architecture

Trying to find a PPC board we could easily obtain was quite tricky. We
stuck to one board per architecture for fairness reasons and also
resources since the Yocto project isn't resourced to maintain BSPs.

We're definitely open to discussions about changes there but it does
need to be a high level discussion, likely at the advisory board level.

Note that some of Yocto's developers and the QA team have those
reference board for test purposes so if we do change we'd need to update
their hardware.

Cheers,

Richard