On 05/25/2011 11:12 PM, Anders Darander wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 20:40, Darren Hart <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 05/25/2011 09:49 AM, Henning Heinold wrote: >>> I agree with khem, each machine should maintain it's bootloader in his bsp >>> or layer. >> >> I'm leaning this way as well. I think oe-core should remain at an >> official u-boot tagged release, like 2011.03 and layers can then extend >> that with a proper .bbappend file. Then we can share the u-boot core >> recipe and just add backported patches in the layers as needed. > > This definitely seems like the best solution. > > BSP specific patches and modifications can normally easily be handled > in a .bbappend file. Together with the suggestion in another e-mail > (or even thread) to keep one old u-boot version around in oe-core, to > ease the transition to a new version in the BSP layers, this should be > no real problem. > > If a machine for some reason needs a specific custom version, then it > might be necessary for that particular BSP layer to carry a complete > u-boot recipe.
Even then they should usually be able to just override the SRCREV. But yes, I agree. > But this shouldn't be a common situation. (And if it > happens frequently, then the machine specific patches really has to be > submitted to upstream u-boot.). -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
