On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Luo Zhenhua-B19537 <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Otavio Salvador >> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:44 AM >> >> > 2) I still don't really see the point in renaming from meta-fsl-ppc -> >> > meta-fsl-qoriq as well as meta-fsl-arm to meta-fsl-imx. But, I wonder >> > what others think about this. It seems like unneeded changes that will >> > just cause confusion. Why not just put vybird in meta-fsl-arm? >> >> I support this idea and it'd make users' life much easier. > [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] One reason is, if meta-fsl-arm is used, the i.MX targets > and Layerscape arm targets are maintained in the same layer, this might > confuse users, E.g. LS arm machines are visible to users of i.MX multimedia > SDK. Same for PPC targets. > i.MX guys, any other reason for the renaming?
Not necessarially; personally I think users will like to have to worry about less layers. It even facilitates the reuse of code and make documentation easier. From my point of view, meta-fsl-arm and meta-fsl-ppc could be the two BSP layers and others could be add around (meta-fsl-networking, meta-fsl-multimedia, ...) in git.freescale.com for extra images and demo recipes. >> > 3) I think we should delay the creation of some of these layers until >> > we really have packages that are duplicated between two layers (e.g. >> > meta-layerscape can wait until we have a recipe that is needed for >> > both ARM and PPC and is not upstream in another layer) >> >> Personally I think it won't happen often as usually it'll not be a BSP >> package that will fit in this set so it'll end in meta-virtualization or >> meta-networking eventually. > [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] I agree to delay the creation of some layers till they > are necessary. We should upstream those shared packages into > oe-core/meta-oe/meta-virtualization/... upstream layers as much as possible. Good. >> > 4) I think we need some more info about the "unifed" layer. I don't >> > think it needs to exist yet, but maybe others would like to see it. >> > Personally, I think it can be created automatically much like poky is >> > now. >> >> As I said, I fear it adding more confusing than solving. It might making >> users wonder which layer he/she will use and don't know exactly the >> difference between the merged layer and the individual ones. > [Luo Zhenhua-B19537] there may be some confusion, meta-freescale is similar > as https://github.com/Freescale/fsl-community-bsp-platform, it can make it > easy for users to download the required layers of right version for a > specific FSL SDK. This layer is SDK specific and only maintained in Freescale > git repository. But it won't include all needed parts for user so it will only add confusion. What makes fsl-community-bsp nice is that it does all for you and gives you a working solution however meta-freescale will give you a set of layers, only. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
