Making Hob better.

Making Hob better.

[John Unland]

Hello everyone,

I am new to the embedded space, been working with embedded for a
couple of months now as well as Linux itself. After much time spent
with Hob I have to say it's a awesome tool to use. However I would
like it to be better than it already is, I see the potential of this
interface to help newbies like myself, weather it be hobbyist or
industrial use. So below is what I have found through my fiddling
around with Hob.


-Some interface inconsistencies when your selecting layers, image
type, distro type etc.

-Image deployments (Only .hddimg and .iso can be deployed to physical
media at the end (To my knowledge) of the build process. There's is a
lot of FS types, but I would really like to have a steps on how to
install these other FS types which documentation nor simply goggling
it helps)

-Branding. There are ways to go and edit files to specify how to
rebrand and stuff but that requires a command line. I would like to
have the simple screen where I can add branding (Boot screens, Logos,
and distro names etc.). I could definitely if Hob does have a Web User
interface where I can't access a command line to change parameters of
the finished product.

-Documentation is awesome, however from a person that has only a year
and a half experience using Linux it's kinda hard reading it
sometimes. (Not really anything bad on Yocto's part. I would just like
to input something that newbies can be represented in this project)

I really could see Hob become a open source version of openSUSE Studio
(Which it's closed source) but for embedded devices. So that's just my
hopes for Hob / Yocto could become...

Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well. I
haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked
with the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and
Beta release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can
certainly help YP out.

Thank you.

Re: Making Hob better.

[nick]

John,
Hob is not meant to be like Suse Studios. Further more you are right about the interface sucking 
hard for certain things, I would recommend you start cleaning that up first and then afterwards 
move on to other areas of interest with YP.
Cheers Nick 

On 14-11-10 06:58 PM, John Unland wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I am new to the embedded space, been working with embedded for a
> couple of months now as well as Linux itself. After much time spent
> with Hob I have to say it's a awesome tool to use. However I would
> like it to be better than it already is, I see the potential of this
> interface to help newbies like myself, weather it be hobbyist or
> industrial use. So below is what I have found through my fiddling
> around with Hob.
> 
> 
> -Some interface inconsistencies when your selecting layers, image
> type, distro type etc.
> 
> -Image deployments (Only .hddimg and .iso can be deployed to physical
> media at the end (To my knowledge) of the build process. There's is a
> lot of FS types, but I would really like to have a steps on how to
> install these other FS types which documentation nor simply goggling
> it helps)
> 
> -Branding. There are ways to go and edit files to specify how to
> rebrand and stuff but that requires a command line. I would like to
> have the simple screen where I can add branding (Boot screens, Logos,
> and distro names etc.). I could definitely if Hob does have a Web User
> interface where I can't access a command line to change parameters of
> the finished product.
> 
> -Documentation is awesome, however from a person that has only a year
> and a half experience using Linux it's kinda hard reading it
> sometimes. (Not really anything bad on Yocto's part. I would just like
> to input something that newbies can be represented in this project)
> 
> I really could see Hob become a open source version of openSUSE Studio
> (Which it's closed source) but for embedded devices. So that's just my
> hopes for Hob / Yocto could become...
> 
> Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well. I
> haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked
> with the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and
> Beta release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can
> certainly help YP out.
> 
> Thank you.
> 

Re: Making Hob better.

[Barros Pena, Belen]

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback on Hob: I agree with everything you said.

We are currently moving towards web-based interfaces for the Yocto Project
tools, and are working on something called Toaster that eventually will do
what Hob does. You can get more information on Toaster at

https://www.yoctoproject.org/documentation/toaster-manual-17

On 10/11/2014 23:58, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well.
> I
>haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked
>with the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and
>Beta release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can
>certainly help YP out.

Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both
development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster
mailing list:

https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster

You can have a look at the features we are currently working on in the
Yocto Project Bugzilla instance

http://goo.gl/KncliQ

There is information on how to contribute at

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribute_to_Toaster

We also have a weekly call that happens on Wednesdays at 4pm GMT. If you
would like to join the call, let me know.

All the best,

Belén


>
>Thank you.
>-- 
>_______________________________________________
>yocto mailing list
>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: Making Hob better.

[Richard Schmitt]

We also are looking to update Hob.  In particular, adding kernel feature support.  Branding would be nice too.  

Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Barros Pena, Belen
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:37 AM
To: John Unland; yocto@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] Making Hob better.

Hi John,

Thanks for your feedback on Hob: I agree with everything you said.

We are currently moving towards web-based interfaces for the Yocto Project tools, and are working on something called Toaster that eventually will do what Hob does. You can get more information on Toaster at

https://www.yoctoproject.org/documentation/toaster-manual-17

On 10/11/2014 23:58, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well.
> I
>haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked with 
>the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and Beta 
>release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can certainly 
>help YP out.

Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster mailing list:

https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster

You can have a look at the features we are currently working on in the Yocto Project Bugzilla instance

http://goo.gl/KncliQ

There is information on how to contribute at

https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribute_to_Toaster

We also have a weekly call that happens on Wednesdays at 4pm GMT. If you would like to join the call, let me know.

All the best,

Belén


>
>Thank you.
>--
>_______________________________________________
>yocto mailing list
>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: Making Hob better.

[Barros Pena, Belen]

Hi Richard,

On 11/11/2014 12:58, "Richard Schmitt" <richard.schmitt@freescale.com>
wrote:

>We also are looking to update Hob.

It is great to see so much interest in Hob: for a while we thought nobody
was using it! But I should probably be clear about the project plans in
relation to Hob. The final goal is to replace it with Toaster. Hob is
still being maintained, but no new features are planned for it.

You are of course free to take Hob and add to it if you feel that's the
tool that better suits your needs. However:

* I cannot guarantee that Hob will be included in future releases of the
Yocto Project.

* Having been very involved in both Hob and Toaster, I must say that
Toaster will be much more powerful, easier to extend with new features
like the ones you suggest below, and in general way nicer to use.

I am not sure how much you know about the Toaster project, or if there is
anything in it that makes it unfit for your needs. But I would be happy to
have a chat about it all, answer any questions you may have, and demo it
if you'd like to see it.

>In particular, adding kernel feature support.  Branding would be nice
>too.  

A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to have.
Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.

Cheers

Belén

>
>Rich
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org
>[mailto:yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Barros Pena, Belen
>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:37 AM
>To: John Unland; yocto@yoctoproject.org
>Subject: Re: [yocto] Making Hob better.
>
>Hi John,
>
>Thanks for your feedback on Hob: I agree with everything you said.
>
>We are currently moving towards web-based interfaces for the Yocto
>Project tools, and are working on something called Toaster that
>eventually will do what Hob does. You can get more information on Toaster
>at
>
>https://www.yoctoproject.org/documentation/toaster-manual-17
>
>On 10/11/2014 23:58, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well.
>> I
>>haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked with
>>the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and Beta
>>release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can certainly
>>help YP out.
>
>Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both
>development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster
>mailing list:
>
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
>
>You can have a look at the features we are currently working on in the
>Yocto Project Bugzilla instance
>
>http://goo.gl/KncliQ
>
>There is information on how to contribute at
>
>https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribute_to_Toaster
>
>We also have a weekly call that happens on Wednesdays at 4pm GMT. If you
>would like to join the call, let me know.
>
>All the best,
>
>Belén
>
>
>>
>>Thank you.
>>--
>>_______________________________________________
>>yocto mailing list
>>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>--
>_______________________________________________
>yocto mailing list
>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: Making Hob better.

[John Unland]

>It is great to see so much interest in Hob: for a while we thought nobody
>was using it!

I do see the potential for toaster as wel (Forgot to mention it). Yes
I do see in the near future Hob being phased out in later releases.
But for what it is right now, there are people using it, I really
think it's a great idea to have something like hob for embedded
systems espically the Hobbyist crowd.

>A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
>see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to have.
>Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.

Under what catagories would these two be filed under?

>Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both
>development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster
>mailing list:

Sure I'll start looking over there. I'm pretty busy with my college
schedule right now so I'm afraid I can't make it to the regular
meetings. But thanks for the offer! :)

>Hob is not meant to be like Suse Studios. Further more you are right about the interface sucking
>hard for certain things, I would recommend you start cleaning that up first and then afterwards
>move on to other areas of interest with YP.
>Cheers Nick

I see, will do.

Cheers.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
<belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 11/11/2014 12:58, "Richard Schmitt" <richard.schmitt@freescale.com>
> wrote:
>
>>We also are looking to update Hob.
>
> It is great to see so much interest in Hob: for a while we thought nobody
> was using it! But I should probably be clear about the project plans in
> relation to Hob. The final goal is to replace it with Toaster. Hob is
> still being maintained, but no new features are planned for it.
>
> You are of course free to take Hob and add to it if you feel that's the
> tool that better suits your needs. However:
>
> * I cannot guarantee that Hob will be included in future releases of the
> Yocto Project.
>
> * Having been very involved in both Hob and Toaster, I must say that
> Toaster will be much more powerful, easier to extend with new features
> like the ones you suggest below, and in general way nicer to use.
>
> I am not sure how much you know about the Toaster project, or if there is
> anything in it that makes it unfit for your needs. But I would be happy to
> have a chat about it all, answer any questions you may have, and demo it
> if you'd like to see it.
>
>>In particular, adding kernel feature support.  Branding would be nice
>>too.
>
> A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
> see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to have.
> Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.
>
> Cheers
>
> Belén
>
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org
>>[mailto:yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Barros Pena, Belen
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:37 AM
>>To: John Unland; yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>Subject: Re: [yocto] Making Hob better.
>>
>>Hi John,
>>
>>Thanks for your feedback on Hob: I agree with everything you said.
>>
>>We are currently moving towards web-based interfaces for the Yocto
>>Project tools, and are working on something called Toaster that
>>eventually will do what Hob does. You can get more information on Toaster
>>at
>>
>>https://www.yoctoproject.org/documentation/toaster-manual-17
>>
>>On 10/11/2014 23:58, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well.
>>> I
>>>haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked with
>>>the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and Beta
>>>release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can certainly
>>>help YP out.
>>
>>Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both
>>development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster
>>mailing list:
>>
>>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
>>
>>You can have a look at the features we are currently working on in the
>>Yocto Project Bugzilla instance
>>
>>http://goo.gl/KncliQ
>>
>>There is information on how to contribute at
>>
>>https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribute_to_Toaster
>>
>>We also have a weekly call that happens on Wednesdays at 4pm GMT. If you
>>would like to join the call, let me know.
>>
>>All the best,
>>
>>Belén
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>>--
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>yocto mailing list
>>>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>
>>--
>>_______________________________________________
>>yocto mailing list
>>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>

Re: Making Hob better.

[Barros Pena, Belen]

On 11/11/2014 15:46, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:

>>A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
>>see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to
>>have.
>>Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.
>
>Under what catagories would these two be filed under?

Toaster

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toaster

Cheers

Belén

Re: Making Hob better.

[John Unland]

>Toaster

>https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toaster

>Cheers

>Belén

What about bootloaders? Where would I file a enhancement for different
boot loaders (U-Boot, Lilo, etc.). Would be good if we had a boot
loaders layer.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
<belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2014 15:46, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
>>>see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to
>>>have.
>>>Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.
>>
>>Under what catagories would these two be filed under?
>
> Toaster
>
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Toaster
>
> Cheers
>
> Belén
>
>

Re: Making Hob better.

[nick]

I am too interesting in helping out Yocto but more with kernel work on Yocto rt and 
standard kernel recipes. If someone would like to point me in the right direction to
aid in helping out in this area of the Yocto project that would be very helpful.
Thanks Nick 

On 14-11-11 10:46 AM, John Unland wrote:
>> It is great to see so much interest in Hob: for a while we thought nobody
>> was using it!
> 
> I do see the potential for toaster as wel (Forgot to mention it). Yes
> I do see in the near future Hob being phased out in later releases.
> But for what it is right now, there are people using it, I really
> think it's a great idea to have something like hob for embedded
> systems espically the Hobbyist crowd.
> 
>> A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
>> see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to have.
>> Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.
> 
> Under what catagories would these two be filed under?
> 
>> Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both
>> development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster
>> mailing list:
> 
> Sure I'll start looking over there. I'm pretty busy with my college
> schedule right now so I'm afraid I can't make it to the regular
> meetings. But thanks for the offer! :)
> 
>> Hob is not meant to be like Suse Studios. Further more you are right about the interface sucking
>> hard for certain things, I would recommend you start cleaning that up first and then afterwards
>> move on to other areas of interest with YP.
>> Cheers Nick
> 
> I see, will do.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
> <belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> On 11/11/2014 12:58, "Richard Schmitt" <richard.schmitt@freescale.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We also are looking to update Hob.
>>
>> It is great to see so much interest in Hob: for a while we thought nobody
>> was using it! But I should probably be clear about the project plans in
>> relation to Hob. The final goal is to replace it with Toaster. Hob is
>> still being maintained, but no new features are planned for it.
>>
>> You are of course free to take Hob and add to it if you feel that's the
>> tool that better suits your needs. However:
>>
>> * I cannot guarantee that Hob will be included in future releases of the
>> Yocto Project.
>>
>> * Having been very involved in both Hob and Toaster, I must say that
>> Toaster will be much more powerful, easier to extend with new features
>> like the ones you suggest below, and in general way nicer to use.
>>
>> I am not sure how much you know about the Toaster project, or if there is
>> anything in it that makes it unfit for your needs. But I would be happy to
>> have a chat about it all, answer any questions you may have, and demo it
>> if you'd like to see it.
>>
>>> In particular, adding kernel feature support.  Branding would be nice
>>> too.
>>
>> A kernel configuration module for Toaster is something that we'd like to
>> see at some point. And the branding one I agree it would be great to have.
>> Feel free to open Bugzilla entries for both.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Belén
>>
>>>
>>> Rich
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org
>>> [mailto:yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Barros Pena, Belen
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:37 AM
>>> To: John Unland; yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>> Subject: Re: [yocto] Making Hob better.
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your feedback on Hob: I agree with everything you said.
>>>
>>> We are currently moving towards web-based interfaces for the Yocto
>>> Project tools, and are working on something called Toaster that
>>> eventually will do what Hob does. You can get more information on Toaster
>>> at
>>>
>>> https://www.yoctoproject.org/documentation/toaster-manual-17
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2014 23:58, "John Unland" <opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lastly, I would really love to help with development as well.
>>>> I
>>>> haven't really gotten into programming that much but I have worked with
>>>> the Fedora Server Special Interest Group doing QA for Alpha and Beta
>>>> release. So if anyone can put me in the right direction I can certainly
>>>> help YP out.
>>>
>>> Contributions are very welcome! :) You can get involved in both
>>> development and QA work. To get started, you can subscribe to the Toaster
>>> mailing list:
>>>
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
>>>
>>> You can have a look at the features we are currently working on in the
>>> Yocto Project Bugzilla instance
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/KncliQ
>>>
>>> There is information on how to contribute at
>>>
>>> https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Contribute_to_Toaster
>>>
>>> We also have a weekly call that happens on Wednesdays at 4pm GMT. If you
>>> would like to join the call, let me know.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Belén
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yocto mailing list
>>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yocto mailing list
>>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>>

Re: Making Hob better.

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi John,

On Tuesday 11 November 2014 11:51:23 John Unland wrote:
> What about bootloaders? Where would I file a enhancement for different
> boot loaders (U-Boot, Lilo, etc.). Would be good if we had a boot
> loaders layer.

I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we 
normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core (where we currently have u-boot, 
grub, grub-efi, syslinux, gummiboot, etc.) or in specific BSPs where a specific 
bootloader is needed (or a specific version of an existing bootloader, e.g. 
BSPs shipping their own version of u-boot is common). FWIW there is also a 
meta-initramfs layer in the meta-openembedded repository which contains 
kexecboot.

Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Making Hob better.

[John Unland]

>I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core...
>Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?

Well I know I like to use U-Boot since it can go across multiple
archs. Well I guess it makes since to just have it in OE-Core. Other
than that that's what I wanted was U-Boot for x86 mostly....But if
It's in OE-Core then there's no need to abstract that out to a
different layer I guess.

Thanks.
John


On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Tuesday 11 November 2014 11:51:23 John Unland wrote:
>> What about bootloaders? Where would I file a enhancement for different
>> boot loaders (U-Boot, Lilo, etc.). Would be good if we had a boot
>> loaders layer.
>
> I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we
> normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core (where we currently have u-boot,
> grub, grub-efi, syslinux, gummiboot, etc.) or in specific BSPs where a specific
> bootloader is needed (or a specific version of an existing bootloader, e.g.
> BSPs shipping their own version of u-boot is common). FWIW there is also a
> meta-initramfs layer in the meta-openembedded repository which contains
> kexecboot.
>
> Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> --
>
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Making Hob better.

[Nick Krause]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:00 PM, John Unland
<opensourcejohn2112@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core...
>>Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?
>
> Well I know I like to use U-Boot since it can go across multiple
> archs. Well I guess it makes since to just have it in OE-Core. Other
> than that that's what I wanted was U-Boot for x86 mostly....But if
> It's in OE-Core then there's no need to abstract that out to a
> different layer I guess.
>
> Thanks.
> John
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Paul Eggleton
> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On Tuesday 11 November 2014 11:51:23 John Unland wrote:
>>> What about bootloaders? Where would I file a enhancement for different
>>> boot loaders (U-Boot, Lilo, etc.). Would be good if we had a boot
>>> loaders layer.
>>
>> I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we
>> normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core (where we currently have u-boot,
>> grub, grub-efi, syslinux, gummiboot, etc.) or in specific BSPs where a specific
>> bootloader is needed (or a specific version of an existing bootloader, e.g.
>> BSPs shipping their own version of u-boot is common). FWIW there is also a
>> meta-initramfs layer in the meta-openembedded repository which contains
>> kexecboot.
>>
>> Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>>
>> Paul Eggleton
>> Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Do we support the kernel supporting off EFI directly as this can make
boot much faster as there is no need for another boot loader in order
to instruct the kernel
how to boot your respected device.
Cheers Nick