oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Alex J Lennon]

Hi,

I'm trying to begin the migration from oe-classic to oe-core, focussing 
on Freescale's
i.MX28 and i.MX51. I recall there was i.MX28 kit being demo'd at FOSDEM 
but I can't
seem to find support anywhere for the i.MX28, which I thought might be 
in meta-fsl-arm?

Can anybody point me in the right direction? (I've half a mind to try 
adding the support
into meta-fsl-arm myself but that would seem somewhat wasteful if it's 
already been
done)

Thanks,

Alex/

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Samuel Stirtzel]

2012/3/14 Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>:
> Hi,

Hi,
>
> I'm trying to begin the migration from oe-classic to oe-core, focussing on
> Freescale's
> i.MX28 and i.MX51. I recall there was i.MX28 kit being demo'd at FOSDEM but
> I can't
> seem to find support anywhere for the i.MX28, which I thought might be in
> meta-fsl-arm?

did the meta-fsl-arm developers merge the meta-freescale repository?
AFAICT there was support for i.MX28 in Andreas git repository:
http://gitorious.org/schnitzeltony-oe-meta/meta-freescale

>
> Can anybody point me in the right direction? (I've half a mind to try adding
> the support
> into meta-fsl-arm myself but that would seem somewhat wasteful if it's
> already been
> done)

The meta-freescale repository might need some work, but it is a starting point.


-- 
Regards
Samuel

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Andreas Müller]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Samuel Stirtzel
<s.stirtzel@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2012/3/14 Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to begin the migration from oe-classic to oe-core, focussing on
>> Freescale's
>> i.MX28 and i.MX51. I recall there was i.MX28 kit being demo'd at FOSDEM but
>> I can't
>> seem to find support anywhere for the i.MX28, which I thought might be in
>> meta-fsl-arm?
>
> did the meta-fsl-arm developers merge the meta-freescale repository?
> AFAICT there was support for i.MX28 in Andreas git repository:
> http://gitorious.org/schnitzeltony-oe-meta/meta-freescale
>
>>
>> Can anybody point me in the right direction? (I've half a mind to try adding
>> the support
>> into meta-fsl-arm myself but that would seem somewhat wasteful if it's
>> already been
>> done)
>
> The meta-freescale repository might need some work, but it is a starting point.
>
meta-freescale merge to meta-arm-fsl is in progress - thanks Otavio:)

Andreas

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Alex J Lennon]

>did the meta-fsl-arm developers merge the meta-freescale repository?

Thanks Andreas, Samuel. I shall take a look.

Best Regards,

Alex

On 15/03/2012 08:27, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Samuel Stirtzel
> <s.stirtzel@googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> 2012/3/14 Alex J Lennon<ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>:
>>> Hi,
>> Hi,
>>> I'm trying to begin the migration from oe-classic to oe-core, focussing on
>>> Freescale's
>>> i.MX28 and i.MX51. I recall there was i.MX28 kit being demo'd at FOSDEM but
>>> I can't
>>> seem to find support anywhere for the i.MX28, which I thought might be in
>>> meta-fsl-arm?
>> did the meta-fsl-arm developers merge the meta-freescale repository?
>> AFAICT there was support for i.MX28 in Andreas git repository:
>> http://gitorious.org/schnitzeltony-oe-meta/meta-freescale
>>
>>> Can anybody point me in the right direction? (I've half a mind to try adding
>>> the support
>>> into meta-fsl-arm myself but that would seem somewhat wasteful if it's
>>> already been
>>> done)
>> The meta-freescale repository might need some work, but it is a starting point.
>>
> meta-freescale merge to meta-arm-fsl is in progress - thanks Otavio:)
>
> Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Otavio Salvador]

[ added meta-fsl-arm on CC ]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 18:18, Alex J Lennon
<ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm trying to begin the migration from oe-classic to oe-core, focussing on
> Freescale's
> i.MX28 and i.MX51. I recall there was i.MX28 kit being demo'd at FOSDEM but
> I can't
> seem to find support anywhere for the i.MX28, which I thought might be in
> meta-fsl-arm?
>
> Can anybody point me in the right direction? (I've half a mind to try adding
> the support
> into meta-fsl-arm myself but that would seem somewhat wasteful if it's
> already been
> done)

I am working on that; my current work in progress can be seen at
https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-fsl-arm/tree/wip-imx28 and it
shouldn't be assumed to be working yet but once I get it more or less
finished I ask you guys to test it as well.

-- 
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

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Alex J Lennon]

Hi Otavio,

 >I am working on that; my current work in progress can be seen at 
https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-fsl-arm

Thanks for that. I had a quick go ad building and as you say I saw 
bitbake fails as it's trying to build up a patched linux-imx kernel.

"include/linux/pagemap.h: In function 'fault_in_pages_readable':"

Maybe the best way for me to proceed would be to put in a pull request 
on your wip-imx28 branch and see if I can add my oe-classic imx28 
specifics into the copy?

Best Regards,

Alex

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 13:34, Alex J Lennon
<ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote:
>>I am working on that; my current work in progress can be seen at
>> https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-fsl-arm
>
> Thanks for that. I had a quick go ad building and as you say I saw bitbake
> fails as it's trying to build up a patched linux-imx kernel.
>
> "include/linux/pagemap.h: In function 'fault_in_pages_readable':"

I fixed the branch right now and you ought to be able to build using it.

> Maybe the best way for me to proceed would be to put in a pull request on
> your wip-imx28 branch and see if I can add my oe-classic imx28 specifics
> into the copy?

I'll do the pull request but only after I get it properly done.
There're some missing things on it and some work to be done. However,
you should be able to base your work on that and keep doing rebases
against this branch (be prepared to fix some conflicts on the way).

-- 
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

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Alex J Lennon]

>However, you should be able to base your work on that and keep doing rebases against this branch

Will do.

What's the view/policy on adding custom board implementations into these 
layers?

e.g. I'm about to start taking a look at an i.MX51 based screen unit. 
Various machine parameters are different including SDRAM settings, so 
I'll probably end up with a new machine, imx51gem or some such, much as 
I did with my imx28evk based "gem" in oe-classic.

Is the the new machine target and associated recipes, kernel+patches 
something that I should expect to be able to merge back into 
meta-fsl-arm at some point?

Thanks / Best Regards,

Alex

On 15/03/2012 16:53, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 13:34, Alex J Lennon
> <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> I am working on that; my current work in progress can be seen at
>>> https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-fsl-arm
>> Thanks for that. I had a quick go ad building and as you say I saw bitbake
>> fails as it's trying to build up a patched linux-imx kernel.
>>
>> "include/linux/pagemap.h: In function 'fault_in_pages_readable':"
> I fixed the branch right now and you ought to be able to build using it.
>
>> Maybe the best way for me to proceed would be to put in a pull request on
>> your wip-imx28 branch and see if I can add my oe-classic imx28 specifics
>> into the copy?
> I'll do the pull request but only after I get it properly done.
> There're some missing things on it and some work to be done. However,
> you should be able to base your work on that and keep doing rebases
> against this branch (be prepared to fix some conflicts on the way).
>

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Eric Bénard]

Hi,

Le Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:01:07 +0000,
Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk> a écrit :
> Is the the new machine target and associated recipes, kernel+patches 
> something that I should expect to be able to merge back into 
> meta-fsl-arm at some point?
> 
that depends if meta-fsl-arm is considered as the layer for supporting
evaluation boards from Freescale of the layer which can host any board
using a Freescale i.MX.
I think the first solution is better and that custom boards should
be added to custom layers (maybe on top of meta-fsl-arm if these custom
boards need recipes included in the reference layer).

Eric
-- 
http://eukrea.com/en/news/104-2012

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Alex J Lennon]

 >I think the first solution is better and that custom boards should be 
added to custom layers

Hmmm ok, thanks That being the case it may be better for me to migrate 
my recipes from
the oe-classic codebase into a new layer created from scratch. It'll be 
quicker and easier for
me that way but perhaps less generic.

(Although my understanding was that Freescale have no intention of 
providing Linux support related
  to OpenEmbedded at this time? Or at least that's what they are telling 
me :)

Alex/

On 15/03/2012 17:10, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:01:07 +0000,
> Alex J Lennon<ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>  a écrit :
>> Is the the new machine target and associated recipes, kernel+patches
>> something that I should expect to be able to merge back into
>> meta-fsl-arm at some point?
>>
> that depends if meta-fsl-arm is considered as the layer for supporting
> evaluation boards from Freescale of the layer which can host any board
> using a Freescale i.MX.
> I think the first solution is better and that custom boards should
> be added to custom layers (maybe on top of meta-fsl-arm if these custom
> boards need recipes included in the reference layer).
>
> Eric

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 14:16, Alex J Lennon
<ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote:
>>I think the first solution is better and that custom boards should be added
>> to custom layers
>
> Hmmm ok, thanks That being the case it may be better for me to migrate my
> recipes from
> the oe-classic codebase into a new layer created from scratch. It'll be
> quicker and easier for
> me that way but perhaps less generic.

I think many things can be merged back but it is better to have custom
boards in specific layers that inherit meta-fsl-arm. That said, I do
believe you ought to check if your changes cannot be made generic
(ofthenly it can be done) and this could allow it to be merged here.

> (Although my understanding was that Freescale have no intention of providing
> Linux support related
>  to OpenEmbedded at this time? Or at least that's what they are telling me
> :)

Please complain at them ... this is the only way to revert it. Some
individuals are working with OpenEmbedded/Yocto and it might end
changing the Freescale's position if we can enough community support
and complains at them :-)

-- 
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

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Alex J Lennon]

>That said, I do believe you ought to check if your changes cannot be made generic

Will try to keep in mind.

>Please complain at them ... this is the only way to revert it.

I'll keep on at them :) Anything not to have to go back to LTIB... ;)

Alex

On 15/03/2012 17:21, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 14:16, Alex J Lennon
> <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>  wrote:
>>> I think the first solution is better and that custom boards should be added
>>> to custom layers
>> Hmmm ok, thanks That being the case it may be better for me to migrate my
>> recipes from
>> the oe-classic codebase into a new layer created from scratch. It'll be
>> quicker and easier for
>> me that way but perhaps less generic.
> I think many things can be merged back but it is better to have custom
> boards in specific layers that inherit meta-fsl-arm. That said, I do
> believe you ought to check if your changes cannot be made generic
> (ofthenly it can be done) and this could allow it to be merged here.
>
>> (Although my understanding was that Freescale have no intention of providing
>> Linux support related
>>   to OpenEmbedded at this time? Or at least that's what they are telling me
>> :)
> Please complain at them ... this is the only way to revert it. Some
> individuals are working with OpenEmbedded/Yocto and it might end
> changing the Freescale's position if we can enough community support
> and complains at them :-)
>

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Otavio Salvador]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 14:26, Alex J Lennon
<ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote:
>> Please complain at them ... this is the only way to revert it.
>
> I'll keep on at them :) Anything not to have to go back to LTIB... ;)

I'll pray for you ;-)

-- 
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

Re: oe-core layer including support for i.MX28

[Eric Bénard]

Le Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:16:04 +0000,
Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk> a écrit :

> 
>  >I think the first solution is better and that custom boards should be 
> added to custom layers
> 
> Hmmm ok, thanks That being the case it may be better for me to migrate 
> my recipes from
> the oe-classic codebase into a new layer created from scratch. It'll be 
> quicker and easier for
> me that way but perhaps less generic.
> 
that was just a suggestion. meta-fsl-arm maintainers can have differents
opinions ;-)

> (Although my understanding was that Freescale have no intention of 
> providing Linux support related
>   to OpenEmbedded at this time? Or at least that's what they are telling 
> me :)
> 
that's not surprising.

Eric
-- 
http://eukrea.com/en/news/104-2012