On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:06:15PM -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Thursday 15 May 2014 11:56 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Shilimkar, Santosh > >> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:39 AM > >> To: Zhang, Hao; Dmytriyenko, Denys > >> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Rini, Tom; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E boot > >> monitor build support > >> > >> On Thursday 15 May 2014 11:07 AM, Hao Zhang wrote: > >>> On 5/15/2014 10:54 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:41:52AM -0400, Hao Zhang wrote: > >> > >> [..] > >> > >>>>>> Can you clarify if you really want all 3 devices installed > >> all the time or > >>>>>> do you really want a recipe that installs the boot monitor > >> per device? I > >>>>>> know you don't currently have 3 machine types so maybe that > >> is what is > >>>>>> feeding your issue here, but my question is whether you need > >> to have > >>>>>> separate builds per device. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I want all the 3 boot monitors built and installed all the > >> time in one > >>>>> recipe, since MCSDK 3.1 supports all the 3 Keystone II devices > >> in the > >>>>> same release package. This applies to the U-boot (3 U-boot > >> build for all > >>>>> the 3 Keystone II devices) and Linux kernel DTB. > >>>> > >>>> Linux kernel has support for board variations through DTBs, > >> obviously. > >>>> > >>>> As of U-boot, in Sitara world we had to manage board variations > >> by detecting > >>>> the board at runtime. So, the same single binary would work on > >> AM335x-EVM, > >>>> AM335x-SK, BeagleBone White and BeagleBone Black. > >>>> > >>>> I would recommend you working with Tom Rini and doing it > >> similarly, so you > >>>> don't have to build 3 different binaries for 3 slightly > >> different Keystone > >>>> baords... > >>>> > >>>> > >> Three boars for same SOC is different than 3 different SOCs with > >> their > >> own boards. We need to support different u-boot configs for that. > >> And > >> upstream of the patches work is already in progress with Tom > >> reviewing > >> the patches. > > > > So which one is it? Is this a case of three boards for a single SoC or 3 > > SoCs with their own boards? > > > I was just saying you AM example was multiple board for 1 SOC. What Hao is > talking > '3 SOCs with their own boards.
If those are 3 different SOCs (not just spins or diff part #s), then we should consider creating 3 different OE machine configs. -- Denys -- _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
