On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > I did a little research and I'd like to try and help us move forward. > > The "problem" at the moment is both oe-core and meta-ti have u-boot > recipes. If Yocto were to merge in the meta-ti recipe to meta-yocto it > would overshadow the oe-core recipe. I believe Yocto wants to encourage > sharing a core on codebases like u-boot which are receptive and working > to facilitate collaboration (not unlike Yocto itself). > > Valid questions are therefore: > > a) What can we do to the u-boot recipe in core to make it customisable > from layers like meta-ti > > b) Is it possible for the u-boot recipe in meta-ti to be a .bbappend > rather than a recipe which overwrites the default. > > For a), I know Darren has some patches which drop the COMPATIBLE_MACHINE > usage for example and instead raise the skip parsing exception when > UBOOT_MACHINE isn't set which is a step in the right direction. If we > find other issues, lets fix them. > > For b), I talked to Koen and he's going to see how feasible this is > although as always with this kind of issue there are various > complicating factors. > > Hopefully if we work both sides of the problem we can get this resolved. > Darren, if you could send out some of your patches so far (e.g. for > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE) that might be helpful. > > If the ultimate answer is that no, meta-ti has so many changes or > specific requirements that mean it needs to stay a .bb file then lets > cross that bridge if we come to it but I think this discussion makes > sense before reaching that conclusion. Its possible the last release of > u-boot has sufficient beagle support for yocto's needs and we could use > that instead. > > Just on a more general note, the agreement on resolving the beagleboard > issue stands as is. The plan is to make beagleboard support in > meta-yocto as near a copy of the meta-ti pieces as possible with the > exception of the kernel where linux-yocto will import the needed patches > to demo the kernel tooling functionality. The layer tooling under > development will automate the process of syncing those pieces. I think > everyone is happy with the agreement and we just need to address some > corner cases like u-boot. >
so is it just a question of beagleboard support or a broader support for all machines ? I know various boards use very different versions of u-boot so is oe-core going to bring that support to u-boot in oe-core and maintain that ? IMO keeping oe-core relatively free of machine dependent stuff would be better. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
