New software layer for the barebox bootloader

New software layer for the barebox bootloader

[Dennis Menschel]

Hi all!

I have created a new software layer named meta-barebox that provides
support for the barebox bootloader.

The layer has already been added to the OpenEmbedded Layer Index:
https://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layer/meta-barebox/

The layer features its own reference manual that describes the interface
of meta-barebox and provides a usage example.
Last but not least, it also answers the question why I have created a
separate layer for the barebox bootloader.
The reference manual can be found here:
https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox/blob/master/doc/ref-manual.md

Have fun!

Best regards,
Dennis Menschel

Re: New software layer for the barebox bootloader

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 903 bytes --]

On 7/10/17 9:51 AM, Dennis Menschel wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> I have created a new software layer named meta-barebox that provides
> support for the barebox bootloader.
> 

Thanks, I see there are many other layers providing barebox of their
own. Next step is to coverge them so that they are can use meta-barebox.

> The layer has already been added to the OpenEmbedded Layer Index:
> https://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layer/meta-barebox/
> 
> The layer features its own reference manual that describes the interface
> of meta-barebox and provides a usage example.
> Last but not least, it also answers the question why I have created a
> separate layer for the barebox bootloader.
> The reference manual can be found here:
> https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox/blob/master/doc/ref-manual.md
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> Best regards,
> Dennis Menschel
> 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 169 bytes --]

Re: New software layer for the barebox bootloader

[Enrico Joerns]

Hi,

I would like to pick this thread up to start a discussion on it.

On 07/10/2017 07:30 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 7/10/17 9:51 AM, Dennis Menschel wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I have created a new software layer named meta-barebox that provides
>> support for the barebox bootloader.
>>
> 
> Thanks, I see there are many other layers providing barebox of their
> own. Next step is to coverge them so that they are can use meta-barebox.
> 
>> The layer has already been added to the OpenEmbedded Layer Index:
>> https://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layer/meta-barebox/
>>
>> The layer features its own reference manual that describes the interface
>> of meta-barebox and provides a usage example.
>> Last but not least, it also answers the question why I have created a
>> separate layer for the barebox bootloader.
>> The reference manual can be found here:
>> https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox/blob/master/doc/ref-manual.md
>>
>> Have fun!

First of all, I also have thank you and say that it's great work you've 
done there! At the moment there are some recipes around and it is really 
worth concentrating the efforts. You did quite a lot work on writing and 
documenting recipes.

Barebox as a bootloader is a really fundamental piece of software to 
bring up a board. Thus, from my point of view, we should push the 
recipes forward to oe-core or at least meta-oe.

People that currently have their own layers providing barebox might tend 
to keep their own layers as long as they do not see any advantages in 
using the meta-barebox layer.
Because each added meta-layer also means a bit more complexity, having a 
layer for more or less a single component (that is also supported by 
other layers) might retain people from using it and this also increases 
the threshold for using barebox at all.

Having barebox support in oe-core will allow people to throw away all 
their custom solutions, will concentrate efforts on a single (set of) 
recipes, will allow tighter integration with other components, and the 
most important; it will ease using it and give the developers the 
opportunity to choose their bootloader more freely, depending on their 
individual hardware and software requirements.

What do you think about that?


Best regards

Enrico


FTR: 'Our' version of the barebox recipe is

https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/meta-ptx/tree/recipes-bsp/barebox/barebox.inc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Enrico Jörns                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-5080 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

Re: New software layer for the barebox bootloader

[Dennis Menschel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2493 bytes --]

Hi Enrico,

Am 04.12.2017 um 15:22 schrieb Enrico Joerns:
> [...]
>
> First of all, I also have thank you and say that it's great work you've
> done there! At the moment there are some recipes around and it is really
> worth concentrating the efforts. You did quite a lot work on writing and
> documenting recipes.
> 
> Barebox as a bootloader is a really fundamental piece of software to
> bring up a board. Thus, from my point of view, we should push the
> recipes forward to oe-core or at least meta-oe.
> 
> People that currently have their own layers providing barebox might tend
> to keep their own layers as long as they do not see any advantages in
> using the meta-barebox layer.
> Because each added meta-layer also means a bit more complexity, having a
> layer for more or less a single component (that is also supported by
> other layers) might retain people from using it and this also increases
> the threshold for using barebox at all.
> 
> Having barebox support in oe-core will allow people to throw away all
> their custom solutions, will concentrate efforts on a single (set of)
> recipes, will allow tighter integration with other components, and the
> most important; it will ease using it and give the developers the
> opportunity to choose their bootloader more freely, depending on their
> individual hardware and software requirements.
> 
> What do you think about that?
> 
> [...]

I would also love to see barebox in one of the official
Yocto/OpenEmbedded layers. As already stated in the FAQ section of my
meta-barebox layer's documentation:

>> One of the goals of the meta-barebox layer is to define a clear and
>> stable interface that covers the most important features of barebox.
>> Such an interface still seems to be missing in the Yocto/OpenEmbedded
>> landscape, which also prevents barebox from gaining popularity and
>> being included in one of the official Yocto/OE layers. You can look
>> at meta-barebox as an attempt to speed up this unification process.

Integrating barebox into either oe-core or meta-oe (and thus having an
official set of BitBake variables to configure barebox) would IMHO also
increase the acceptance for BSP vendors to add barebox related variables
into their machine configuration files. That way, BSP support for both
u-boot and barebox could coexist in the same configuration files without
the need to extend them via additional layers.

Best regards,
Dennis Menschel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 817 bytes --]