From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tinyArch.localdomain (unknown [78.110.170.148]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D06E00307 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:36:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.29] (unknown [195.171.99.130]) by tinyArch.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 671D920654 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:02:26 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <4F33F605.9040901@communistcode.co.uk> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:36:21 +0000 From: Jack Mitchell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120205 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org References: <4F32F016.4020008@gmail.com> <4F32F1B3.8090000@mlbassoc.com> <4F32F31B.2000303@gmail.com> <59EDC5ED-F339-48E8-8C4D-7137C23927CD@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F32F59B.7010804@mlbassoc.com> <8EA0B5D5-4DC5-4F48-83E6-B019862BD57F@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F32F87E.2070907@mlbassoc.com> <38997C75-E36D-4A49-96D0-FB5E8A52817D@gmail.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED10127667EB8@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F33C61E.5080505@gmail.com> <4C3F7029-4844-4BA7-B378-BC30E27660F0@dominion.thruhere.net> <1328801627.9968.32.camel@ted> <4F33F4A0.6010303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F33F4A0.6010303@gmail.com> Subject: Re: building Yocto for Pandaboard 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: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:36:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/02/12 16:30, jfabernathy wrote: > On 02/09/2012 10:33 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 14:54 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >>> Op 9 feb. 2012, om 14:11 heeft jfabernathy het volgende geschreven: >>>> On 02/09/2012 08:01 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote: >>>>>> Wow! Sorry I jumped into a mailing list I obviously don't >>>>>> understand or belong in. I apologize if I offended. I did read >>>>>> the README, but it didn't make a bit of sense to me because it >>>>>> talked about angstrom, which I don't know anything about and >>>>>> wondered what that had to do with yocto. My current Yocto >>>>>> knowledge is based on the meta-intel layer, which doesn't mention >>>>>> angstrom. It sounds like the hint/trick that Gary mentioned will >>>>>> make bitbake build with just yocto, which is what I want. My goal >>>>>> is more of a proof of concept. I'd like to prove if you could take >>>>>> the same image recipe and move it from Pandaboard to Atom and vice >>>>>> versa. That way a developer could pick the hardware platform based >>>>>> on the performance, features, and cost. The software effort should >>>>>> be minimal to move if the Yocto concept works as advertised. >>>>> Jim, you are welcome here. As was mentioned before there have been >>> a lot of discussions about this layer. One of the goals for the >>> meta-ti layer will be to work with just oe-core and yocto and not >>> require meta-angstrom. We are moving that direction and the use case >>> you are trying and your experiences with it are important. Thanks for >>> taking the time to give this a shot. >>>> Thanks, glad the proof of concept falls into the groups thinking as >>> well. I will monitor for progress on the use of just the Yocto Linux >>> for this POC. >>> >>> Yocto or Poky? Because if you want yocto, angstrom very much *is* >>> yocto. If you want Poky, that's something different. >> I think there are a few things need to get cleared up here as this is >> likely confusing for people. >> >> The Yocto Project is the overall project which is working on improving >> embedded Linux for people in whatever areas those improvements are >> needed in. This involves things like eglibc, creating standard formats >> for hardware definitions (BSPs) and has also involved some work on build >> system which are derived from OpenEmbedded. >> >> The Yocto Project uses Poky as its reference build system which is a >> combination of Bitbake, OE-Core, a load of documentation and a very >> small shim called meta-yocto. Its purpose is to provide a known good >> base system people can build on top of by adding layers. >> >> Angstrom is similar to Poky in that its a mix of components allowing >> people to build things. It includes Bitbake and OE-Core and some other >> pieces. It has an equivalent to meta-yocto with different functionality. >> I'll let Koen as one of its maintainers describe what its purpose is. >> One difference is that is has a specific set of hardware targets and >> provides prebuilt package feeds which Poky does not (nor does the Yocto >> Project). >> >> meta-ti is intended as a hardware support layer for various TI products. >> >> The trouble is that some of these components have been around for a >> while and it hasn't always been possible to neatly layer things. In >> particular, meta-ti historically has a dependency on Angstrom. >> >> Work is underway to remove that dependency so meta-ti can operate freely >> with both Poky and Angstrom, or just with OE-Core and Bitbake as >> separate pieces. There is no architectural problem with this and it is >> the intention of everyone involved. There is the question of sorting >> some of the mechanics and making the change whilst not causing problems >> for existing users. I'm really happy to see progress on this! >> >> So in answer to Jim's question, you will be able to use meta-ti with >> Poky directly but right now, there are some details being worked through >> and it doesn't quite work. Perhaps we could mention that in the meta-ti >> README so people can see what the plan is as well as the current >> situation? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> > When you look at Yocto project from a marketing point of view, which > is not something the open source community usually concentrates on for > obvious reasons, it would be a very positive message to be able to > talk about, and demonstrate with examples of taking the same project > and moving it from one architecture to another with minimal effort, as > long as both architectures supported the key features like media > playback acceleration, 3D, sound, HDMI, etc. > > While hardware companies tend to cringe when you make it too easy to > move back and forth, the reality is, if you have a high volume product > you can't justify or afford to throw excess performance, thermals, > power, and cost where it is not needed. For example a cheap digital > signage application that just throws advertisement, or menu data on > the screen could be done with an ARM processor like OMP3/4, but if you > had a higher end product that needed to do extensive video analytics > for customer profiling and advertising effectiveness, you're going to > want a Core i5/i7. It would be of great benefit to take the Yocto > project that did the digital sign on the ARM and quickly get it up and > running on the Core i5 and then concentrate on the analytics application. > > I think this portability is a better sell, if it's all Yocto. We all > know that really smart people can move around from different Linux > versions and development methods, but it's an easier sale to a > customer management when you say it can all be done on Yocto and that > it's easily demonstrated. > > JIm A > >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > meta-ti mailing list > meta-ti@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti Jim, This is the exact scenario that I am undergoing with my company. I am attempting to use Yocto to prove platform mobility under Linux with a common set of applications which can then be specialised on a per product/hardware basis. It seems as though this is a very lucrative idea with the speed of SoC development these days! Regards, Jack.