From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sanddollar.geekisp.com (sanddollar.geekisp.com [216.168.135.167]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D656E0072A for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 28427 invoked by uid 1003); 27 Jan 2012 20:50:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (philip@opensdr.com@96.240.160.175) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 27 Jan 2012 20:50:43 -0000 Message-ID: <4F230E21.9010405@balister.org> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:50:41 -0500 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Mills References: <1327603585-5599-1-git-send-email-Chase.Maupin@ti.com> <4F21D735.5000303@ti.com> <27324814-C581-4BD9-92DF-68FC5CB4CECF@dominion.thruhere.net> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9BA72@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F22E41B.8070708@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9D77A@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F2304E7.7070809@ti.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED1010BF9D879@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <20120127202150.GE8707@denix.org> <4F230803.1070503@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <4F230803.1070503@ti.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] matrix-gui-browser: port from arago overlay X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:51:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 01/27/2012 03:24 PM, William Mills wrote: > ..... >>> can >>> agree to spliting meta-ti into two layers, a HW layer for our devices >>> and a >>> layer containing all of the TI recipes. >>> >>> But if we wanted to match the meta-intel layer way would you also >>> propose >>> making a layer per device? I personally find that more confusing. >> I don't think that was Bill's message. It was simplicity. BSP only >> layer, no >> supplemental apps, if not absolutely required. >> >> Your example with lmbench is not correct - BSP layer should be simple >> enough >> to be used with OE-Core alone to produce a console rootfs image with >> nothing >> but busybox. >> >> How about splitting meta-ti into: >> * BSP only >> * SGX graphics >> * DSP tools >> * WiFi etc. >> >> And then splitting meta-arago into: >> * Arago distro for TI SDKs >> * Supplemental apps >> > > Need to get my "YES!" in here before everyone barfs all over the > proposal :) > > Chase: your right. I do not want to follow intel's example of layer per > BSP. I build stuff for the USRP E100 (based on a gumstic overo). I use my own later for BSP that provides kernel, u-boot, and image recipes. I still need a TI BSP layer for DSP stuff (we do not care about SGX, although it is possible customers could). Do forget your customers using all this to ship products. Philip