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

[Koen Kooi]

Op 18 apr 2011, om 13:04 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> 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? ;-)

That would actually be very helpfull, there's too much crud in there that needs a cleanup. Which is slowly improving, though :)

regards,

Koen