On 05/24/2011 10:13 AM, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 24 mei 2011, om 18:36 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven: > >> 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 > > You're forgetting: > > c) Have yocto use meta-ti for beagleboard.
Per our discussion at ELC, according to the notes I took anyway, we agreed that in order for meta-yocto to support the Beagleboard we would have a two stage effort. The first would be to update the meta-yocto uboot and kernel recipes (and this meant the linux-yocto*.git kernel repositories and meta data) with the meta-ti recipes. This is the aspect I'm working on now. Second would be to work with meta-ti through the layer tooling which is being actively discussed on the lists. > TI is actively participating in yocto and it's getting way too weird > that you yocto guys keep refusing to use the meta-ti layer. I've > heard the arguments why you refuse it, but at this point this is > becoming a farce. Your approach here is not conducive to arriving at a mutually acceptable solution, neither is it in keeping with the plan laid out at ELC with your input. >> >> 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. > > I most strongly object to that. You object to moving the changes into oe-core? Or you object to any changes to a u-boot recipe that don't involve simply referencing meta-ti? If the latter, we need to revisit our previously agreed upon course of action because we seem to have different views of what that is. > But given that you are still refusing > to use meta-ti, I suspect it doesn't matter what I say as the > maintainer for beagleboard. I asked for your opinion by Cc'ing you Koen. -- 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
