On Fri, 2023-02-03 at 14:50 +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > This adds the support for the barebox bootloader to oe-core. The recipe > is based on the recipe found in meta-ptx [1] with a few minor adaptions. > > This basic support includes the bootloader and the target tools to > interact with the bootloader. The host tools support is not part of > this commit. This will be added later on as separate recipe. > > [1] https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <[email protected]> > --- > meta/conf/documentation.conf | 7 + > meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc | 123 ++++++++++++++++++ > meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb | 5 + > ...IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-to-lz4.patch | 40 ++++++ > 4 files changed, 175 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox_2023.01.0.bb > create mode 100644 > meta/recipes-bsp/barebox/files/0001-pbl-set-IMAGE_COMPRESSION-per-default-to-lz4.patch
In order to add something to OE-Core, we need to see it being used by a reasonable portion of the ecosystem. Is there enough usage of barebox on common boards that justifies this? I noticed there is no maintainers entry being added so this will throw QA errors on the autobuilder. Also, I'm not sure adding doc varflags for individual recipe variables to documentation.conf makes sense. We should probably have them in the recipe or just put entries into the manual? Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#176717): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176717 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96722579/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
