From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QPb3f-0002pJ-Tb for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 15:57:04 +0200 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 06:53:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,273,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="8132757" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.181]) ([10.255.12.181]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2011 06:53:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4DDE5B87.6010700@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 06:54:15 -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> <1306338695.27470.41.camel@rex> <20110525164919.GB11519@mail.familie-heinold.de> <4DDD4D1B.5050301@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: 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: Thu, 26 May 2011 13:57:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 05/25/2011 11:12 PM, Anders Darander wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 20:40, Darren Hart wrote: >> On 05/25/2011 09:49 AM, Henning Heinold wrote: >>> I agree with khem, each machine should maintain it's bootloader in his bsp >>> or layer. >> >> I'm leaning this way as well. I think oe-core should remain at an >> official u-boot tagged release, like 2011.03 and layers can then extend >> that with a proper .bbappend file. Then we can share the u-boot core >> recipe and just add backported patches in the layers as needed. > > This definitely seems like the best solution. > > BSP specific patches and modifications can normally easily be handled > in a .bbappend file. Together with the suggestion in another e-mail > (or even thread) to keep one old u-boot version around in oe-core, to > ease the transition to a new version in the BSP layers, this should be > no real problem. > > If a machine for some reason needs a specific custom version, then it > might be necessary for that particular BSP layer to carry a complete > u-boot recipe. Even then they should usually be able to just override the SRCREV. But yes, I agree. > But this shouldn't be a common situation. (And if it > happens frequently, then the machine specific patches really has to be > submitted to upstream u-boot.). -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel