From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QOwJk-0006ko-Ev for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 20:26:56 +0200 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2011 11:23:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,262,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="4075717" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.149]) ([10.255.12.149]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2011 11:23:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4DDBF7BA.2000706@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:23:54 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <4DDBDE9D.5000709@linux.intel.com> <20110524172330.GC18086@sakrah.homelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20110524172330.GC18086@sakrah.homelinux.org> 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 18:26:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/24/2011 10:23 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote: >> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In > > why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you > want to have some of those machines in a different layer. The underlying goal here is to improve the Beagleboard support in meta-yocto, without unnecessarily duplicating work. It was suggested at ELC that we modify the u-boot and linux-yocto recipes/sources to include the beagleboard specific changes from meta-ti. Once the boot loader and kernel were in place, we would look to using the still-under-discussion layer tooling to integrate the rest of meta-ti. > >> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on. >> Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context: >> >> 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 >> >> 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. >> >> a) create a bbappend in meta-yocto and duplicate the meta-ti >> modifications in bbappend form. >> b) Modify the oe-core recipe 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. >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Thoughts? > > Well I am in similar boat where I wanted to build atom-pc for angstrom > but I was thinking using meta-intel layer instead of pulling stuff out > and stuffing it elsewhere and certainly not oe-core I think the difference I'm seeing is that u-boot is a common recipe (it exists in oe-core) and ideally it would track the upstream git repository. If the recipe in oe-core is not intended to be used for any real machines and isn't used as a base for bbappends in layers like meta-ti (meta-ti has a complete uboot_git.bb), then it should just be removed entirely. I believe that there is value in not duplicating this recipe and consolidating the modifications to it in a single place makes sense. The fact that it needs so many non-upstream patches I think is something that also needs to be addressed. The second part is that we want to ensure the linux-yocto recipe and kernel have complete support for the Beagleboard. This isn't something we can do by just reusing a layer. The linux-yocto recipe takes a different approach to managing BSP specific source and config changes. I believe it reduces duplication of effort for things like bug fixing, security fixes, and config fragment management. Thanks, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel