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: > > 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
From 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. > > 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? > > -- > Darren Hart > Intel Open Source Technology Center > Yocto Project - Linux Kernel > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
