On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.cla...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64.
>> > You can find it in  https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64
>> >
>> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A
>> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for
>> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other
>> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it.
>> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH
>> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe.
>> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a
>> stand alone app
>> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it
>> would be possible
>> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to 
>> see if
>> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer.
> Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs
> to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot.
>> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do
>> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway.
> Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :)  iirc all of the
> models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a
> bad idea.

You can always write a recipe to package a prebuilt u-boot.

> --
> Tom
yocto mailing list

Reply via email to