From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EE1E01491 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2012 10:19:06 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,367,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="196629694" Received: from unknown (HELO envy.home) ([10.7.199.69]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Sep 2012 10:19:06 -0700 Message-ID: <504637F5.8090603@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:18:45 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Ashfield References: <50450DC6.20303@r-finger.com> <50451947.2090401@r-finger.com> <5045C2B7.1070406@r-finger.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: yocto beagleboard.conf -- should it not go away? 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, 04 Sep 2012 17:19:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/04/2012 05:20 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Tomas Frydrych > wrote: >> Hi Bruce, >> >> On 03/09/12 22:08, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>> That being said, taking a step back, what are you trying to get out of >>> meta-yocto in this scenario ? >> >> a) I am targeting multiple chips, including TI Omap and Intel Atom. >> meta-yocto is a prerequisite for the various machines in meta-intel, so >> I have to include meta-yocto if I want to build images for an Intel >> chip. Nothing unusual here. >> >> b) meta-yocto is the Poky distro layer; if you want to use Poky, then >> you need meta-yocto. >> >>> see above. I misspoke. I don't think there's an intent to make meta-yocto >>> and meta-ti work together, but oe-core + meta-ti, that's the combo that >>> makes sense. >> >> See (b) above; you are not saying that Poky is only meant for Intel HW, >> are you? > > Definitely not. But I'm not familiar with anyone's (outside of the > weekly meetings > that I attend) plans for meta-yocto, so I'm commenting on what I see. You'd need > someone from TI to comment on their meta-yocto compatibility. And that person > definitely is not me :) > >> >> The basic problem with meta-yocto is that it combines BSP stuff >> (meta-intel prerequisite, Atom & Beagle config) with distro stuff (Poky, >> Yocto branding). That's convenient for doing QA on a limited set of HW, >> but suboptimal for real use; BSP layers simply should not be dependent >> on distro layers, it largely defeats the purpose of having layers. >> >> Splitting out the minimal beagle config into a layer of its own would >> improve things quite a bit. > > All of the above are things that Richard would need to comment on, the yocto > layering and maintenance is not something that I have control over :) > As far as I understand it, meta-yocto and meta-ti should be able to work together. If they don't, it's a bug in one or the other or both and we should work to address it. The machine namespace collision could be an example of something we need to fix. -- Darren -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Technical Lead - Linux Kernel