Re: [meta-fsl-arm-extra][PATCH 0/3] Replace wandboard kernel

[Eric Nelson <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com>]

On 04/03/2013 07:30 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Daiane Angolini
> <daiane.angolini@freescale.com> wrote:
>> On 04/03/2013 12:54 AM, John Weber wrote:
>>>
>>> This patchset adds a recipe to support building the wandboard kernel
>>> from the 'official' wandboard git repository.  This recipe is named
>>> 'linux-wandboard'.
>>
>>
>> Initially I was not confortable with this approach (of creating another
>> linux recipe only to cover one board), but I understood that the 'official'
>> has been maintained by community, and has been growing faster. So, I
>> like/want to support the community kernel.
>>
>> I'm not sure regarding the name "linux-wandboard". Isn't 'wandboard' the
>> board name? What would be the wandboard's linux provider name?
>
> In fact wandboard is more like the project umbrella name; and
> Wandboard Solo / Wandboard Dual being the boards.
>
>>> It also removes support from linux-imx for Wandboard so that kernel
>>> support for Wandboard is not confusing and is maintained in one
>>> repository.
>>
>> It makes me think that the same approach should be used for imx6sabrelite.
>>
>> Is there a (better) external git repository for sabre lite kernel?
>
> I fully agree; I think we should have a linux-boundary recipe in
> -extra and move SabreLITE to there so we give more freedom to Boundary
> Devices to update their kernel easily. Eric, what do you think?
>

Hi Otavio,

I think that's the right approach.

Things will spiral out of control if a single package tries to
track all boards from all vendors.

i.MX6 boards seem to be popping up all over the place and
avoiding bottlenecks will be important going forward.

Regards,


Eric