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

[Alex J Lennon <ajlennon@dynamicdevices.co.uk>]

>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).
>