meta-ti layer split

meta-ti layer split

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

All,

After much debate and further considerations ;) we've decided to split meta-ti 
repository into 2 layers to ease up on inter-layer dependencies and to enable 
additional use cases of building basic BSP images with a very small set of 
layers, only requiring oe-core as a dependency. The proposed split is the 
following:

1. meta-ti-bsp-core - is the ultra portable layer.  Starting out it will 
contain only recipes-kernel and recipes-bootloader plus necessary machine 
configurations. Depending on the platform, can be as little as basic board 
support.

2. meta-ti-bsp-extras - provides the full chip functions with perhaps some 
extra constraints. Initialy this will contian support for DSP, Graphics, and 
Wifi. Provides additional board support for peripherals that may require 
software components like DSPBIOS, CodecEngine, gst-ti, firmware etc. Depends 
on meta-ti-bsp-core. In the future, if certain technologies prove themselves 
well portable, we may move them from meta-ti-bsp-extras to meta-ti-bsp-core.

I'll be starting the initial work on this in a separate branch, calling for 
wider review once ready.

Please provide feedback. Thanks.

-- 
Denys

Re: meta-ti layer split

[Jack Mitchell]

On 31/01/12 00:44, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> All,
>
> After much debate and further considerations ;) we've decided to split meta-ti
> repository into 2 layers to ease up on inter-layer dependencies and to enable
> additional use cases of building basic BSP images with a very small set of
> layers, only requiring oe-core as a dependency. The proposed split is the
> following:
>
> 1. meta-ti-bsp-core - is the ultra portable layer.  Starting out it will
> contain only recipes-kernel and recipes-bootloader plus necessary machine
> configurations. Depending on the platform, can be as little as basic board
> support.
>
> 2. meta-ti-bsp-extras - provides the full chip functions with perhaps some
> extra constraints. Initialy this will contian support for DSP, Graphics, and
> Wifi. Provides additional board support for peripherals that may require
> software components like DSPBIOS, CodecEngine, gst-ti, firmware etc. Depends
> on meta-ti-bsp-core. In the future, if certain technologies prove themselves
> well portable, we may move them from meta-ti-bsp-extras to meta-ti-bsp-core.
>
> I'll be starting the initial work on this in a separate branch, calling for
> wider review once ready.
>
> Please provide feedback. Thanks.
>

This sounds fantastic. I am looking forward to being able to use an 
officially supported BSP with the Yocto tools (particularly the 
beaglebone!). Will the changes initially go into the meta-ti repo on the 
yocto git or will development start internally and released when deemed 
'ready'?

Regards,
Jack.

Re: meta-ti layer split

[Otavio Salvador]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1731 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 22:44, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:

> After much debate and further considerations ;) we've decided to split
> meta-ti
> repository into 2 layers to ease up on inter-layer dependencies and to
> enable
> additional use cases of building basic BSP images with a very small set of
> layers, only requiring oe-core as a dependency. The proposed split is the
> following:
>
> 1. meta-ti-bsp-core - is the ultra portable layer.  Starting out it will
> contain only recipes-kernel and recipes-bootloader plus necessary machine
> configurations. Depending on the platform, can be as little as basic board
> support.
>
> 2. meta-ti-bsp-extras - provides the full chip functions with perhaps some
> extra constraints. Initialy this will contian support for DSP, Graphics,
> and
> Wifi. Provides additional board support for peripherals that may require
> software components like DSPBIOS, CodecEngine, gst-ti, firmware etc.
> Depends
> on meta-ti-bsp-core. In the future, if certain technologies prove
> themselves
> well portable, we may move them from meta-ti-bsp-extras to
> meta-ti-bsp-core.
>
> I'll be starting the initial work on this in a separate branch, calling for
> wider review once ready.
>
> Please provide feedback. Thanks.


I don't like the idea. In my POV what is not compatible with OE-Core might
be moved to a meta-ti-extras, no problem, but making a meta-ti-bsp-core
seems too restrictive and I see not many people end using only it in the
end.

-- 
Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
E-mail: otavio@ossystems.com.br  http://www.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854              http://projetos.ossystems.com.br

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2208 bytes --]