[OE-core] [poky] [PATCH 2/3] netbase: automatically bring up usb0 on beagleboard

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 12:48 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 18 apr 2011, om 11:53 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 11:30 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 18 apr 2011, om 11:17 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> >> 
> >>> On Friday 15 April 2011 19:26:43 Saul Wold wrote:
> >>>> There was some initial discussion at ELC this last week about what goes
> >>>> where and how layers are going to work moving forward.  I know that we
> >>>> are committed to the qemu* machines in oe-core (meta), and that
> >>>> currently meta-yocto contains a set of core HW (beagleboard among them),
> >>>> so the question then is should the HW specific stuff, such as this patch
> >>>> move to meta-yocto or some other layer?  There are a couple other
> >>>> recipes such as x-load and formfactor that contain HW specific files.
> >>> 
> >>> Ah, yes, you're right - we definitely don't want this file in oe-core. I should 
> >>> have pushed this particular patch to meta-yocto 
> >> 
> >> You mean meta-texasinstruments, right? Or do you yocto folks keep
> >> going to deny that there's an upstream layer for beagleboard support?
> > 
> > To quote my email from earlier today:
> > 
> > """
> >> It should live in the upstream beagleboard BSP layer, which currently
> >> is meta-texasinstruments
> > 
> > That is the goal, yes. It was agreed that until we sort out the layer
> > tooling, there would be some code in meta-yocto which would be a copy of
> > various upstream parts which includes beagleboard. Over time I'm hoping
> > to see these pieces converge, then we when get the tooling right it will
> > become automated.
> > """
> > 
> > which I'd hardly call denial. There is a plan indicated above which we
> > agreed to and we intend to follow unless there is a problem?
>
> This 
> 
> >>>  I should 
> >>> have pushed this particular patch to meta-yocto 
> 
> bit from Pauls email indicates a problem. Since that is not pushing to
> upstream first (implied by the use of 'copy'), but keeping fixes only
> in the yocto layer.

One step at a time. Getting pieces in roughly the right places is a good
start, then we can look at syncing up any differences.

I can start jumping up and down every time someone duplicates something
in meta-oe to be synced "later" if it would help? ;-)

I'd like to hope we can try and be a little less confrontational. A
simple request asking "could you ensure this gets submitted to
meta-texasinstruments" would have made things clear.

Cheers,

Richard