2014-08-21 15:51 GMT+04:00 Andreas Färber <[email protected]>: >> I think it would be best to handle non upstream u-boot boards separately >> and only keep upstream boards in u-boot from Base:System. What do you >> think about that? > > +1
Then we would be able to keep different specific versions of u-boot, but this should be an exception but not the rule. So the final goal is to have nice upstream u-boot (as well as the linux kernel). > We already have a Contrib:sunxi, where we could place it. In v2014.07 > however, only Cubietruck was present, not Cubieboard and Cubieboard2, Cubietruck is the newest version AFAIK. >> I reworked our EXT2 support for MLO (SPL for OMAP) to ease upstreaming. >> I based my work on Matwey update (2014.10-rc1). >> See: >> https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor/home:Guillaume_G:branches:Base:System > > About v2014.10-rc1 I'm more doubtful. To build JeOS images, we need to > submit u-boot to Factory, so Base:System and Factory(:ARM) will be > pretty much the same all the time. So I'm thinking it may make sense to > update Base:System to the latest stable only, which still is v2014.07, > and do the v2014.10-rc1 in, e.g., devel:ARM:Factory. If we put the > resulting u-boot on an SD card it is less of a problem if something in > the -rc breaks; but for flashing U-Boot, bricking the device is a risk. > So I see this similar to keeping Kernel:HEAD separate from Factory. > I did -rc just because I am so slow and thought that 2014.10 will be released to the moment when I will have sorted the patches. > Last time I checked, there was no real OpenOCD package in OBS (only some > old one in a home:), and it requires JTAG hardware, connectors on the > board and config files matching the board. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory/openocd -- With best regards, Matwey V. Kornilov http://blog.matwey.name xmpp://[email protected] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
