However, you should be able to base your work on that and keep doing rebases
against this branch
Will do.
What's the view/policy on adding custom board implementations into these
layers?
e.g. I'm about to start taking a look at an i.MX51 based screen unit.
Various machine parameters are different including SDRAM settings, so
I'll probably end up with a new machine, imx51gem or some such, much as
I did with my imx28evk based "gem" in oe-classic.
Is the the new machine target and associated recipes, kernel+patches
something that I should expect to be able to merge back into
meta-fsl-arm at some point?
Thanks / Best Regards,
Alex
On 15/03/2012 16:53, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 13:34, Alex J Lennon
<[email protected]> wrote:
I am working on that; my current work in progress can be seen at
https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-fsl-arm
Thanks for that. I had a quick go ad building and as you say I saw bitbake
fails as it's trying to build up a patched linux-imx kernel.
"include/linux/pagemap.h: In function 'fault_in_pages_readable':"
I fixed the branch right now and you ought to be able to build using it.
Maybe the best way for me to proceed would be to put in a pull request on
your wip-imx28 branch and see if I can add my oe-classic imx28 specifics
into the copy?
I'll do the pull request but only after I get it properly done.
There're some missing things on it and some work to be done. However,
you should be able to base your work on that and keep doing rebases
against this branch (be prepared to fix some conflicts on the way).
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
