On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 20:07, Darren Hart wrote:
> My current thinking on this is that for meta-yocto we want to have a
> reasonably functional self-contained example BSP for ARM. Beagleboard
> was the board selected for that. meta-yocto should be able to build the
> core-image-* images and have
Hi Jason,
On 05/25/2011 04:31 PM, Jason Kridner wrote:
> This thread got pretty long pretty fast, but I am imagining there is some
> place still here for me to chime in and build my own understanding of what
> we are doing...
Of course, thanks for the input...
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:51 P
On 05/25/2011 11:12 PM, Anders Darander wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 20:40, Darren Hart 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 sh
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 20:40, Darren Hart 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
This thread got pretty long pretty fast, but I am imagining there is some
place still here for me to chime in and build my own understanding of what
we are doing...
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Richard Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 09:36 -0700, Kh
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 09:36 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Richard Purdie
> 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
On 05/25/2011 09:49 AM, Henning Heinold wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 p
Hi,
I agree with khem, each machine should maintain it's bootloader in his bsp
or layer.
Bye Henning
___
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Richard Purdie
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-
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
On 05/24/2011 11:35 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On (24/05/11 11:23), Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 05/24/2011 10:23 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote:
I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
>>>
>>> why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is bes
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 11:35 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> so essentially you are interested in maintaining this board in
> meta-yocto and not use meta-ti as long as you have a process to sync
> your changes in a sane manner between two layers I think it should be
> ok. However we have to make clear if s
On (24/05/11 11:23), Darren Hart wrote:
> On 05/24/2011 10:23 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> > On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote:
> >> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
> >
> > why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you
> > want to ha
On 05/24/2011 10:23 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote:
>> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
>
> why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you
> want to have some of those machines in a different layer.
Th
On 05/24/2011 10:13 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 24 mei 2011, om 18:36 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>
>> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from
>> meta-ti. In doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you
>> thoughts on. Specifically, where to put these c
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:36:45AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on.
> Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context:
>
> 1) oe-core is intended
On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote:
> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you
want to have some of those machines in a different layer.
> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like
Op 24 mei 2011, om 18:36 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on.
> Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context:
>
> 1) oe-core is
I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on.
Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context:
1) oe-core is intended to support emulated machines only
2) oe-core has a "virgin" u-boot rec
19 matches
Mail list logo
