Re: About customizing the image_types_fsl class

[Carlos Rafael Giani <dv@pseudoterminal.org>]

On 2014-01-20 15:12, Daiane Angolini wrote:
> I think the question here is how "standard" will SPL be for imx. How 
> many boards has already SPL support *now*?
>
> I think it's something we need to start including, because it's the 
> next standard, however, we must make both working in parallel (spl and 
> non-spl).
>
> And, I would say, it's better to include the additional source code 
> for SPL support directly to image_types_fsl instead of derivative it 
> only on meta-fsl-arm-extra

True. If more boards start using SPL, then it should become part of the 
image_types_fsl class. Also, a flag to disable writing the uImage 
outside of the partitions would also be useful (but not essential).

>
> Overall I choose u-boot mainline always. It is our default bootloader, 
> at least in general lines.
>
> The u-boot mainline hummingboard stability can be known with simple 
> test. And any additional support may be included. It's only a matter 
> of planing.
>
> 2014.01 is about to be released, and u-boot-fslc is about to be update 
> to that version. And we may thing about backport any accepted patch to 
> 2014.01 if it's planned only to 2014.04.
>
> Conclusion: I think the best is u-boot mainline, even if it need some 
> rework, it's the best long-term option, in my point of view.

This means I should wait until 2014.01 is released and added to oe-core 
before I submit my cubox-i patches for meta-fsl-arm-extra ?