Le Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:20:28 -0300, Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Eric Bénard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Otavio, > > > > Le Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:56:01 -0300, > > Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:48 PM, John Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Are we completely gutting the old u-boot for wandboard dual? This patch > >> > doesn't pertain to mainline but it does still work for the FSL u-boot. > >> > >> I'd prefer to remove old and unused code. Except if you have a reason > >> to keep it? > >> > >> Both Dual and Solo variants are going to use U-Boot mainline and noone > >> will use this, except if explicitly set. So I think in the end it > >> won't be used at all. Do you see a reason to keep it? > > > > maybe because you are migrating several boards to a new bootloader which > > is not even stable (u-boot 2013.04 is at rc2) and not present in the > > official Freescale BSP ? > > Wandboard support is not present in official BSP either; the U-Boot is > being daily tested by Fabio and me so it had a good coverage. > if two testers of a -rc2 is a good coverage to migrate several boards (including some official Freescale evk) to this -rc2 a few days before the release then everything is fine, sorry for the annoyance. > > Or maybe the policy has changed since last week and you consider > > there is no risk to migrate to a -rc bootloader just before the > > release ;-) > > The point is support. In case of maintain branch of kernel you won't > be able to open SR issues about this kernel while U-Boot the support > is already given by community. > > So the policy is to allow the change when we will have support; not > the opposite. > OK fine. Eric _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
