From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fllv0015.ext.ti.com (fllv0015.ext.ti.com [198.47.19.141]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.3669.1588991554704532226 for ; Fri, 08 May 2020 19:32:35 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=fail reason="body hash did not verify" header.i=@ti.com header.s=ti-com-17q1 header.b=ZK0d5taz; spf=pass (domain: ti.com, ip: 198.47.19.141, mailfrom: denys@ti.com) Received: from fllv0034.itg.ti.com ([10.64.40.246]) by fllv0015.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0492WWkA013451; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:32:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1588991552; bh=MRIW9cxwrkoDA/C2layPODop+yVp0L8K4RF+g3Nld/U=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ZK0d5tazA2QbFufkJBjBONH2mWTGXaa2Sqg1tc2XxZz67eMu28iJ2ufKTkXzki3B6 6x0n9T9PTtUll6XNXeCc33I/24CKhX913fb6MDrCFI+y7WXAEBp/PKStRm8gLXniZl HSj0rc6ATOaZZOxLJI6FZuZaV5oxvri2ViKZhSvk= Received: from DFLE110.ent.ti.com (dfle110.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.31]) by fllv0034.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 0492WWkE078981 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 May 2020 21:32:32 -0500 Received: from DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) by DFLE110.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:32:32 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE108.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:32:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 0492WUFc046535; Fri, 8 May 2020 21:32:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 22:32:30 -0400 From: "Denys Dmytriyenko" To: Luca CC: Subject: Re: [meta-ti] meta-ti setup suggestions for beaglebone (SoC AM335x) Message-ID: <20200509023229.GC13922@beryl> References: <2215.1588846668633401958@lists.yoctoproject.org> <28518.1588877955623972653@lists.yoctoproject.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <28518.1588877955623972653@lists.yoctoproject.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by fllv0015.ext.ti.com id 0492WWkA013451 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Luca, To answer your questions: * It is always recommended to use so-called stable branches, that corresp= ond=20 to Yocto release names - dunfell, zeus, etc. It is expected that master c= an=20 be broken at times due to active development. Also, we do extensive inter= nal=20 testing on those stable branches and apply tags when such testing complet= es=20 successfully - i.e. internal releases. You can see those tags in the repo= -=20 ti2020.01.00, ti2020.00.04, etc. Between those tags it is unlikely, but s= till=20 possible something may get inadvertently broken. Which is what happened f= or=20 you here, unfortunately - we were migrating from zeus to dunfell between=20 ti2020.00.04 and ti2020.01.00. If you are new and don't know where to sta= rt,=20 I'd recommend picking the latest release tag in the series - the highest = third=20 number or no number at all, like ti2020.00=3Dti2020.00.04. As you can see= , we=20 just started with ti2020.01.xx series with the first .00 tag in dunfell. = Other=20 than that, we follow the standard Yocto Project and Open Source practices. * There is very little difference between am335x-evm and beaglebone machi= nes=20 in meta-ti. You can think of it as beaglebone being a leaner variant of=20 am335x-evm. The actual differences can be seen in the config files: http://arago-project.org/git/?p=3Dmeta-ti.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dconf/machine/a= m335x-evm.conf;hb=3DHEAD http://arago-project.org/git/?p=3Dmeta-ti.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dconf/machine/b= eaglebone.conf;hb=3DHEAD They both build on top of a common ti33x.inc file that specifies the enti= re=20 SoC family. From there, beaglebone uses fewer DTBs, ttyS0 as console, no=20 built-in LCD/touchscreen and no UBI configuration. At some point it used = own=20 U-boot defconfig, but that got deprecated. So, in other words, beaglebone= is=20 a subset of am335x-evm machine. It is exactly the same BSP (kernel, u-boo= t,=20 FWs, etc.) for both of them, with just minor packaging differences. --=20 Denys On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:59:15AM -0700, Luca wrote: > Thanks Charlie, >=20 > now it is booting fine and from your explanation I can also try to=20 > understand the reason behind the error I was getting. >=20 > Actually both the commits you pointed out had=A0already caught my atten= tion=20 > because I was trying to get a first bootable setup before using a custo= m a=20 > .wic.in file. > Considering that, I think my doubts about which branch or tag is stable= are=20 > somehow still valid. >=20 > May I ask you if you can at least partially solve the doubts that I=20 > expressed? > * suggested/tested branch, tag or commit for beaglebone and amx335 SOC?= =20 > Maybe it would be useful to know that for all the supported SOCs. > * which are the differences between the machines am335-evm and beaglebo= ne?=20 > Since beaglebone uses am335 SOC there should be only a "reduced amount = of=20 > differences" right? > Maybe I am wrong, but I think a short explanation in the main README, a= t=20 > least for the first question,=A0would save a few hours for newbies like= me and=20 > possibly a few minutes even to experienced users. Maybe the explanation= is=20 > already in the right place and I simply don't know where I have to look= for=20 > it. >=20 > Regards > Luca