From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QBmIU-0007Zn-3a for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:07:15 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3IB4rhw011630 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:04:53 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11587-01 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:04:49 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3IB4fK5011624 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:04:45 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <22E1FECB-BC83-4638-9555-6C5571C3C176@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <72ccbf03bcbec48a34d830c356e591a9139e3794.1302886579.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <4DA88DE3.2050702@linux.intel.com> <201104181017.59589.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1303120390.5518.88.camel@rex> <22E1FECB-BC83-4638-9555-6C5571C3C176@dominion.thruhere.net> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 12:04:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1303124673.5518.115.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [poky] [PATCH 2/3] netbase: automatically bring up usb0 on beagleboard X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 11:07:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 12:48 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 18 apr 2011, om 11:53 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:30 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> Op 18 apr 2011, om 11:17 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> On Friday 15 April 2011 19:26:43 Saul Wold wrote: > >>>> There was some initial discussion at ELC this last week about what goes > >>>> where and how layers are going to work moving forward. I know that we > >>>> are committed to the qemu* machines in oe-core (meta), and that > >>>> currently meta-yocto contains a set of core HW (beagleboard among them), > >>>> so the question then is should the HW specific stuff, such as this patch > >>>> move to meta-yocto or some other layer? There are a couple other > >>>> recipes such as x-load and formfactor that contain HW specific files. > >>> > >>> Ah, yes, you're right - we definitely don't want this file in oe-core. I should > >>> have pushed this particular patch to meta-yocto > >> > >> You mean meta-texasinstruments, right? Or do you yocto folks keep > >> going to deny that there's an upstream layer for beagleboard support? > > > > To quote my email from earlier today: > > > > """ > >> It should live in the upstream beagleboard BSP layer, which currently > >> is meta-texasinstruments > > > > That is the goal, yes. It was agreed that until we sort out the layer > > tooling, there would be some code in meta-yocto which would be a copy of > > various upstream parts which includes beagleboard. Over time I'm hoping > > to see these pieces converge, then we when get the tooling right it will > > become automated. > > """ > > > > which I'd hardly call denial. There is a plan indicated above which we > > agreed to and we intend to follow unless there is a problem? > > This > > >>> I should > >>> have pushed this particular patch to meta-yocto > > bit from Pauls email indicates a problem. Since that is not pushing to > upstream first (implied by the use of 'copy'), but keeping fixes only > in the yocto layer. One step at a time. Getting pieces in roughly the right places is a good start, then we can look at syncing up any differences. I can start jumping up and down every time someone duplicates something in meta-oe to be synced "later" if it would help? ;-) I'd like to hope we can try and be a little less confrontational. A simple request asking "could you ensure this gets submitted to meta-texasinstruments" would have made things clear. Cheers, Richard