From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from r-finger.com (r-finger.com [178.79.160.5]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AF1E01408 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 10:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (host86-170-61-246.range86-170.btcentralplus.com [86.170.61.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by r-finger.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9CB8F60E52; Tue, 15 May 2012 18:36:26 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4FB29419.7070302@r-finger.com> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 18:36:25 +0100 From: Tomas Frydrych User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.3) Gecko/20120329 Icedove/10.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Ashfield References: <4FB21EBC.1000106@r-finger.com> <4FB279CC.1080503@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4FB279CC.1080503@windriver.com> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: Raspberry Pi [was Re: Kernel modules fail to compile for ARM] X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:36:27 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bruce, On 15/05/12 16:44, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 12-05-15 05:15 AM, Tomas Frydrych wrote: >> On 14/05/12 19:52, Chris Tapp wrote: >>> I'm trying to put a BSP together for an ARM system (Raspberry Pi, >>> ARM1176JZF-S CPU). >> >> I got the feeling that there might be multiple OE/RPI efforts going on >> at the same time unaware of each other, e.g., I noticed this >> meta-raspberrypi layer on github that seems to be well on the way, >> https://github.com/djwillis/meta-raspberrypi ... perhaps getting various >> folk interested in this together would be beneficial. > > I'll jump in and ask my obvious question, if we want to pull in some > extra BSP/kernel developers, is there a fundamental reason why a > different kernel/kernel version than one of the linux-yocto ones is > being used ? > > If you line up with one of those, there's a chance to pickup fixes, > features and have someone like me help maintain things where it > makes sense. Let me turn this question back at you then: is Yocto going to be doing thorough Q&A for all of these HW platforms? Decent Q&A is what really sets Yocto apart, and what makes it my first port of call, but I got a feeling that the scope of this is at the moment somewhat restricted as far as HW is concerned; without Q&A 'fixes' quickly turn into problems -- I'd rather be pulling kernel from somewhere that deals with the specific HW that pick up generic fixes without the Q&A. (Though admittedly working with some silicon vendors specific meta layers can be real PITA :) ). Tomas