From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QOvXH-0005i5-LE for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 19:36:51 +0200 Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so5489377fxm.6 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:33:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=KhEtnLjRf7WHSxIPf50W4ROR/sKFLIqR0JlcXxeJ92s=; b=DKy16KB2lSYj+pHgNDcB/NxbgdkOCYZPQkr9CXKrL7rAtpJpGEHBFM5iz2PyCf//2/ 5Iu84TjP95sgiVt1HtZjwg8qc8hGM8mIWNIV+UoY0RWhQDVQ8caLOzOfpIVg3SpkekGD edJIUDvONKfm6Nz/Y5IHeYg7F5+SUepdYzf+o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=c9UWl/yakAb2qLlw7gwhELcZWW6K2nLEnrcfTs9SBRggsOfLQ0H16EaBFiO3aK4Soc oePNDOZJb0SEvcU1qjZuocY3ERIoTlWYjyloz5WUvwR7zfdvy92PEIfa+qiIB9W5S2bv JkIQfrvlSglg8HTNoP+nKyRFU/8PdgsWl0J+U= Received: by 10.223.6.9 with SMTP id 9mr3666637fax.68.1306258430068; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([94.230.152.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e20sm2397786fai.11.2011.05.24.10.33.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 24 May 2011 10:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:33:47 +0200 From: Martin Jansa To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Message-ID: <20110524173347.GC3222@jama.jama.net> References: <4DDBDE9D.5000709@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4DDBDE9D.5000709@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.11 Cc: Koen Kooi Subject: Re: Updating u-boot for oe-core or meta-yocto 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: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:36:51 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz" Content-Disposition: inline --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:36:45AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In > doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on. > Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context: >=20 > 1) oe-core is intended to support emulated machines only > 2) oe-core has a "virgin" u-boot recipe (no patches) > 3) meta-yocto does not have a u-boot recipe (no bbappend either) > 4) meta-ti has it's own u-boot recipe with per-machine patches >=20 > A stated goal was to bring the Yocto Project's u-boot support for the > Beagleboard in line with that in meta-ti. There are several ways I can > go about this. >=20 > a) create a bbappend in meta-yocto and duplicate the meta-ti > modifications in bbappend form. > b) Modify the oe-core recipe directly =46rom my understanding what BSP layers are for: c) use meta-ti BSP in meta-yocto and if something in meta-ti is not good enough for meta-yocto, then alter it with .bbappend or work with meta-ti folks to improve it in meta-ti directly. > While a) is the most direct approach to accomplish our goal, it requires > continual maintenance and duplicates effort. I don't care for this > approach. b) has the potential to consolidate all beagleboard u-boot > recipe work into a single place. It could simplify the meta-ti and > eliminate the need for a bbappend in the meta-yocto layer. >=20 > The question of whether bootloaders have a place in oe-core should > probably be addressed. While they aren't needed for the emulated > machines, they are a highly reusable component for real systems, and > that seems justify keeping them in oe-core. Does anyone disagree with > this assessment? >=20 > I propose pulling the necessary changes to u-boot from meta-ti into > oe-core. My initial scan suggested the beagleboard patches are mostly > contained to beagle specific source files. I would prefer to pull in all > the patches for all machines into the SRC_URI, rather than divide them > up by machine. This reduces complexity considerably. For the couple of > patches that collide, we would keep those as machine specific. >=20 > As a final part of the work, I would include my beagleboard patch status > audit in the included patches and continue to work on reducing the > patches in the recipe for the beagleboard. >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > --=20 > Darren Hart > Intel Open Source Technology Center > Yocto Project - Linux Kernel >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --ABTtc+pdwF7KHXCz--