Re: proper recipe for building for beagle xM? meta-ti?

[William Mills <wmills@ti.com>]

On 03/02/2012 06:18 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2012-03-02 15:50, William Mills wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/02/2012 05:33 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, William Mills wrote:
>>>
>>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>>> Congratulations you are the first beta tester for the new README.txt
>>>> language :) (patched two days ago).
>>>>
>>>> Denys: I suggest
>>>>
>>>> change:
>>>>
>>>> "Due to the above, it is now recommended to follow the instructions
>>>> at http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>>>
>>>> to:
>>>>
>>>> "When the other layer combinations are supported instructions will
>>>> be supplied here. Until that time please see the Angstrom setup
>>>> instructions below.
>>>>
>>>> *** Angstrom w/ meta-ti Layer Stack setup: ***
>>>> Please follow the instructions at
>>>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom"
>>>
>>> i might try something a bit different. given that angstrom is the
>>> tested way to go, by all means, point that out and *strongly*
>>> recommend that approach.
>>>
>>> on the other hand, what is the current issue with the yocto/meta-ti
>>> combo? is it *known* to be broken? or is it simply not sufficiently
>>> tested? in cases like that, i see no problem in cautioning people
>>> about it, but telling them that if they're feeling adventurous,
>>> they're welcome to give it a shot but if it breaks, as they say, they
>>> get to keep all the pieces.
>>>
>>> don't discourage people from trying it, but make sure you give
>>> proper instructions for how to use it, that's all. unless, as i said,
>>> it's really and truly unusable.
>>
>> We will update the README when it is merely in need of testing.
>> Today, we know there is code that does not work with GCC 4.6.
>> Today, we know there are features in the recipes that do not work w/o
>> Angstrom.
>
> Can you elaborate on the above? I have been [I think] successfully using
> poky+meta-ti
> to support internal platform based on DM8148 and DM3730 - meta-ti is the
> best choice
> for a kernel "jumping off point" for these platforms. So far, I've only
> had to make a scant few tweaks to get this combo to work, in particular:

If we can make some simple changes (or document workarounds) that enable 
bare bones support for poky/oe-core that does not break full support in 
Angstrom, I'm all for it.  Even if we have to limit it to a subset of 
boards.

I'll try to give you a better answer Monday.