* Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.
2012-01-31 18:34 ` [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release Saul Wold
@ 2012-01-31 19:16 ` Darren Hart
2012-01-31 19:31 ` Martin Jansa
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Darren Hart @ 2012-01-31 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: Paul Gortmaker, poky
On 01/31/2012 10:34 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>> On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>>> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12. In doing so, some of
>>>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
>>>> moved in.
>>>>
>>>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
>>>> u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
>>>> u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
>>>> u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
>>>>
>>>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc | 4 +---
>>>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb | 3 ++-
>>>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb | 3 ++-
>>>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
>>
>> It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be. I'd say that
>> mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
>> whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
>> to really change often from one release to the next.
>>
>> If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
>> that. What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
>> them laying around, or STONITH?
>>
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta
> should go.
>
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
>
> Comments from the u-boot users? Do we need to keep the older u-boot or
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the
> compatibility of the older version?
We should keep N and N-1 uboot versions around. This gives users time to
ensure their BSP works. After that, if new u-boot cannot be made to work
with a given BSP, then that BSP layer should include their own version
of a u-boot recipe in the layer's recipes-bsp/u-boot.
--
Darren
>
> Thanks
> Sau!
>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul.
>>
>>>
>>> Sau!
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.
2012-01-31 18:34 ` [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release Saul Wold
2012-01-31 19:16 ` Darren Hart
@ 2012-01-31 19:31 ` Martin Jansa
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Martin Jansa @ 2012-01-31 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer; +Cc: Paul Gortmaker, poky
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:34:34AM -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> >> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12. In doing so, some of
> >>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
> >>> moved in.
> >>>
> >>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
> >>> u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
> >>> u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
> >>> u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
> >>>
> >>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc | 4 +---
> >>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb | 3 ++-
> >>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb | 3 ++-
> >>> meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
> >
> > It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be. I'd say that
> > mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> > whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> > to really change often from one release to the next.
> >
> > If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> > that. What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> > them laying around, or STONITH?
> >
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta
> should go.
>
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
>
> Comments from the u-boot users? Do we need to keep the older u-boot or
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the
> compatibility of the older version?
All machines from meta-smartphone which are using u-boot are using only
uboot.inc from oe-core, because each has own patchset derived from
specific upstream revision.
Not the best, but such machine specific u-boot_git.bb are quite small
and not so bad to maintain.
Cheers,
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread