* [RFC] U-Boot Recipes @ 2013-03-01 11:47 Jack Mitchell 2013-03-01 13:33 ` Bruce Ashfield 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jack Mitchell @ 2013-03-01 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Today I was building an image for the beaglebone with oe-core + meta-beagleboard. meta-beagleboard pretty much provides the machine definition and the kernel. In order to build the correct u-boot (2013.01+) I had to add u-boot 2013.01 to oe-core. Whilst during this I noticed the mess that the u-boot directory had become, I think we need to have a show of hands who uses what u-boot recipes and can they migrate to newer (common) versions. When I submit a patch to get 2013.01 supported, that would make 4 different releases of u-boot; which seems a bit excessive. Thoughts? -- Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk) Embedded Systems Engineer http://www.embed.me.uk -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] U-Boot Recipes 2013-03-01 11:47 [RFC] U-Boot Recipes Jack Mitchell @ 2013-03-01 13:33 ` Bruce Ashfield 2013-03-01 14:42 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2013-03-01 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jack Mitchell; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Jack Mitchell <ml@communistcode.co.uk> wrote: > Today I was building an image for the beaglebone with oe-core + > meta-beagleboard. meta-beagleboard pretty much provides the machine > definition and the kernel. In order to build the correct u-boot (2013.01+) I > had to add u-boot 2013.01 to oe-core. Whilst during this I noticed the mess > that the u-boot directory had become, I think we need to have a show of > hands who uses what u-boot recipes and can they migrate to newer (common) > versions. The mpc8315e-rdb reference uses v2012.04, and a quick survey didn't turn up any other explicit preferred versions in the layers that I have around my development machine. So for now v2012.04 needs to stay, but as we bump that board to the 3.8 kernel, we can give another bootloader a test run. > > When I submit a patch to get 2013.01 supported, that would make 4 different > releases of u-boot; which seems a bit excessive. Most releases that I've ever used have kept compatibility fairly well, so I'm all for keeping the number of active versions to a minimum. I'd say three is a good number, since that matches the number of active kernel versions in oe-core as well. Cheers, Bruce > > Thoughts? > > -- > > Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk) > Embedded Systems Engineer > http://www.embed.me.uk > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] U-Boot Recipes 2013-03-01 13:33 ` Bruce Ashfield @ 2013-03-01 14:42 ` Richard Purdie 2013-03-01 14:53 ` Bruce Ashfield 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2013-03-01 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: the oe-core layer, Patches On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 08:33 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Jack Mitchell <ml@communistcode.co.uk> wrote: > > Today I was building an image for the beaglebone with oe-core + > > meta-beagleboard. meta-beagleboard pretty much provides the machine > > definition and the kernel. In order to build the correct u-boot (2013.01+) I > > had to add u-boot 2013.01 to oe-core. Whilst during this I noticed the mess > > that the u-boot directory had become, I think we need to have a show of > > hands who uses what u-boot recipes and can they migrate to newer (common) > > versions. > > The mpc8315e-rdb reference uses v2012.04, and a quick survey didn't turn up > any other explicit preferred versions in the layers that I have around my > development machine. > > So for now v2012.04 needs to stay, but as we bump that board to the 3.8 kernel, > we can give another bootloader a test run. > > > > > When I submit a patch to get 2013.01 supported, that would make 4 different > > releases of u-boot; which seems a bit excessive. > > Most releases that I've ever used have kept compatibility fairly well, so I'm > all for keeping the number of active versions to a minimum. I'd say three is > a good number, since that matches the number of active kernel versions in > oe-core as well. I think one u-boot would be nice. Lets see if we can bump up the mpc8315e-rdb version... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC] U-Boot Recipes 2013-03-01 14:42 ` Richard Purdie @ 2013-03-01 14:53 ` Bruce Ashfield 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2013-03-01 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 08:33 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Jack Mitchell <ml@communistcode.co.uk> wrote: >> > Today I was building an image for the beaglebone with oe-core + >> > meta-beagleboard. meta-beagleboard pretty much provides the machine >> > definition and the kernel. In order to build the correct u-boot (2013.01+) I >> > had to add u-boot 2013.01 to oe-core. Whilst during this I noticed the mess >> > that the u-boot directory had become, I think we need to have a show of >> > hands who uses what u-boot recipes and can they migrate to newer (common) >> > versions. >> >> The mpc8315e-rdb reference uses v2012.04, and a quick survey didn't turn up >> any other explicit preferred versions in the layers that I have around my >> development machine. >> >> So for now v2012.04 needs to stay, but as we bump that board to the 3.8 kernel, >> we can give another bootloader a test run. >> >> > >> > When I submit a patch to get 2013.01 supported, that would make 4 different >> > releases of u-boot; which seems a bit excessive. >> >> Most releases that I've ever used have kept compatibility fairly well, so I'm >> all for keeping the number of active versions to a minimum. I'd say three is >> a good number, since that matches the number of active kernel versions in >> oe-core as well. > > I think one u-boot would be nice. Lets see if we can bump up the > mpc8315e-rdb version... That's always the goal, but time and effort comes into play .. I've got my hands full with my current items and won't commit to a bump, since I won't commit .. and then miss. If someone else does the bump, that's an option .. but I have no idea who that someone else would be. One random thought (for no real reson is that this is one particular area that commercial and upstream differ .. we almost never bump our u-boot versions once they work, since there's no benefit and only risk to updating the firmware and reflashing the board (heck, even *building* uboot) when it is older and doesn't have any missing functionality. That being said, I'll see what I can do, but no promises. In the mean time, the version called out in the reference board should stay around. Cheers, Bruce > > Cheers, > > Richard > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-03-01 15:10 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-03-01 11:47 [RFC] U-Boot Recipes Jack Mitchell 2013-03-01 13:33 ` Bruce Ashfield 2013-03-01 14:42 ` Richard Purdie 2013-03-01 14:53 ` Bruce Ashfield
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox