Re: [RFC] default u-boot

[Daiane Angolini <daiane.angolini@freescale.com>]

On 10/10/2013 04:16 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Eric Nelson
> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/2013 10:44 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Eric Nelson
>>> <eric.nelson@boundarydevices.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2013 09:28 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems the best would be if, instead of pushing to our u-boot GIT,
>>>>> it had regular updates in the u-boot-boundary recipes and point to
>>>>> newer revisions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We'll make sure to update with each switch in our production branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Great; this is the way to go.
>>>
>>> Could you please update the current SRCREV and PV values to match the
>>> current state?
>>>
>>
>> This is essentially done... meta-fsl-arm-extra is only one patch behind
>> (a custom board).
>>
>> We're expecting to issue our next release after 2013.10 is finalized.
>
> Great; so PV might be updated? for 2013.07 I think.
>
> I think this was the root cause of Daiane's confusion as it points 2013.01.

Oh, good point.

It made me remember I was wondering yesterday night if we want to have a 
pattern/standard for the string added after kernel version for all 
providers!
(and how to descriver both u-boot and linux providers)

Because it's a mess today.



-- 
Daiane