From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QOue3-0004iz-JD for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 24 May 2011 18:39:47 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2011 09:36:45 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.149]) ([10.255.12.149]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2011 09:36:44 -0700 Message-ID: <4DDBDE9D.5000709@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:36:45 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer , Koen Kooi Subject: Updating u-boot for oe-core or meta-yocto X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:39:47 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 recipe (no patches) 3) meta-yocto does not have a u-boot recipe (no bbappend either) 4) meta-ti has it's own u-boot recipe with per-machine patches A stated goal was to bring the Yocto Project's u-boot support for the Beagleboard in line with that in meta-ti. There are several ways I can go about this. a) create a bbappend in meta-yocto and duplicate the meta-ti modifications in bbappend form. b) Modify the oe-core recipe directly While a) is the most direct approach to accomplish our goal, it requires continual maintenance and duplicates effort. I don't care for this approach. b) has the potential to consolidate all beagleboard u-boot recipe work into a single place. It could simplify the meta-ti and eliminate the need for a bbappend in the meta-yocto layer. The question of whether bootloaders have a place in oe-core should probably be addressed. While they aren't needed for the emulated machines, they are a highly reusable component for real systems, and that seems justify keeping them in oe-core. Does anyone disagree with this assessment? I propose pulling the necessary changes to u-boot from meta-ti into oe-core. My initial scan suggested the beagleboard patches are mostly contained to beagle specific source files. I would prefer to pull in all the patches for all machines into the SRC_URI, rather than divide them up by machine. This reduces complexity considerably. For the couple of patches that collide, we would keep those as machine specific. As a final part of the work, I would include my beagleboard patch status audit in the included patches and continue to work on reducing the patches in the recipe for the beagleboard. Thoughts? -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel