On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 5:25 PM Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/5/2023 8:30 AM, Ryan Eatmon via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > On 6/5/2023 8:11 AM, Paresh Bhagat wrote: > >> Add new recipe for u-boot-ti-jailhouse and linux-ti-jailhouse which will > >> be used for jailhouse for am62xx-evm. > >> > >> Jailhouse support for am62xx-evm requires few patches for u-boot and > >> linux > >> which are hosted at processor-sdk/u-boot and processor/linux > >> respectively. > >> To build a image with jailhouse for am62xx-evm, these recipes > >> will be used instead of u-boot-ti-staging and linux-ti-staging by > >> changing > >> the preferred_provider. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Paresh Bhagat <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> .../recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti-jailhouse_2023.04.bb | 9 +++++++++ > >> .../recipes-kernel/linux/linux-ti-jailhouse_6.1.bb | 9 +++++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+) > >> create mode 100644 > >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti-jailhouse_2023.04.bb > >> create mode 100644 > >> meta-ti-bsp/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-ti-jailhouse_6.1.bb > >> > >> diff --git > >> a/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti-jailhouse_2023.04.bb > >> b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti-jailhouse_2023.04.bb > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 00000000..079d55dd > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/meta-ti-bsp/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-ti-jailhouse_2023.04.bb > >> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > >> +require u-boot-ti-staging_2023.04.bb > >> + > >> +# This will have priority over generic uboot path > >> + > >> +BRANCH = "ti-u-boot-2023.04-jailhouse" > >> + > >> +UBOOT_GIT_URI = "git://git.ti.com/git/processor-sdk/u-boot.git" > > > > What is reasoning for not upstreaming these patches (both u-boot and > > kernel) even just into the TI repositories? > > > > My concern is the CICD process. This is adding another recipe with a > > completely different linux/u-boot repository that we need to add support > > for to keep the recipes up to date. > > > > And you guys will to keep rebasing these patches on top of the latest > > 6.1 prod branch when CICD promotes. > > > > This just feels like something that is going to turn into a lot of > > maintenance work in the future. > > > After discussing this with Praneeth, these recipes should not be called > jailhouse, but rather something more generic (maybe experiments). We do > not want to explode the number of recipes in the directory with every > experiment we want to run in the future... We can then configure which > branch under the experiments to pick based on something in the distro > features or via machine features. > > And upon further reflection, do we want to create a new layer under the > meta-ti repo to house all of these new changes and not host them in > meta-ti-bsp? Basically keep meta-ti-bsp as the production versions of > code? Any thoughs Andrew, Denys, Randolph?
For experiments I think it makes sense to have it hosted in another layer, but in this case jailhouse is an official functionality that is also supported by TI, isn't it? My concern is that real customers might want to have jailhouse enabled, which will force them to use this extra layer which might not necessarily be aligned with the main bsp revision used (e.g. kernel and u-boot), causing maintenance issues for product builders. Maybe in this case it is just better to have the patches available in the layer and enabled dynamically via machine features? It is still a pain to maintain as it might have conflicts in the future and might require patch updates, but if indeed a desired feature it might make sense to be part of the main layer. Cheers, -- Ricardo Salveti
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#16671): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/16671 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/99339809/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
