On 5/15/2014 12:22 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shilimkar, Santosh >> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:14 AM >> To: Dmytriyenko, Denys >> Cc: Maupin, Chase; Zhang, Hao; Rini, Tom; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [meta-ti] [PATCH] boot-monitor: add K2L and K2E boot >> monitor build support >> >> On Thursday 15 May 2014 12:11 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> yes they are 3 different SOCs with different capabilities > > Then Denys is right. We should have 3 different OE machine configs which all > share an SOC_FAMILY of "keystone". That way they can re-use as much as > possible, but unique differences such as the bootloader, example apps, etc > can be easily handled. >
Can you show me an example how to do that? -- _______________________________________________ meta-ti mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti
