Re: [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E boot monitor build support

[Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>]

On Thursday 15 May 2014 12:11 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:06:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Thursday 15 May 2014 11:56 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Shilimkar, Santosh
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:39 AM
>>>> To: Zhang, Hao; Dmytriyenko, Denys
>>>> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Rini, Tom; meta-ti@yoctoproject.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E boot
>>>> monitor build support
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 15 May 2014 11:07 AM, Hao Zhang wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/2014 10:54 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:41:52AM -0400, Hao Zhang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you clarify if you really want all 3 devices installed
>>>> all the time or
>>>>>>>> do you really want a recipe that installs the boot monitor
>>>> per device?  I
>>>>>>>> know you don't currently have 3 machine types so maybe that
>>>> is what is
>>>>>>>> feeding your issue here, but my question is whether you need
>>>> to have
>>>>>>>> separate builds per device.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want all the 3 boot monitors built and installed all the
>>>> time in one
>>>>>>> recipe, since MCSDK 3.1 supports all the 3 Keystone II devices
>>>> in the
>>>>>>> same release package. This applies to the U-boot (3 U-boot
>>>> build for all
>>>>>>> the 3 Keystone II devices) and Linux kernel DTB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux kernel has support for board variations through DTBs,
>>>> obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As of U-boot, in Sitara world we had to manage board variations
>>>> by detecting
>>>>>> the board at runtime. So, the same single binary would work on
>>>> AM335x-EVM,
>>>>>> AM335x-SK, BeagleBone White and BeagleBone Black.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would recommend you working with Tom Rini and doing it
>>>> similarly, so you
>>>>>> don't have to build 3 different binaries for 3 slightly
>>>> different Keystone
>>>>>> baords...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Three boars for same SOC is different than 3 different SOCs with
>>>> their
>>>> own boards. We need to support different u-boot configs for that.
>>>> And
>>>> upstream of the patches work is already in progress with Tom
>>>> reviewing
>>>> the patches.
>>>
>>> So which one is it?  Is this a case of three boards for a single SoC or 3 SoCs with their own boards?
>>>
>> I was just saying you AM example was multiple board for 1 SOC. What Hao is talking
>> '3 SOCs with their own boards.
> 
> If those are 3 different SOCs (not just spins or diff part #s), then we should 
> consider creating 3 different OE machine configs.
> 
yes they are 3 different SOCs with different capabilities