[OE-core] Updating u-boot for oe-core or meta-yocto

[Martin Jansa]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:36:45AM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> 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

From my understanding what BSP layers are for:
c) use meta-ti BSP in meta-yocto

and if something in meta-ti is not good enough for meta-yocto, then
alter it with .bbappend or work with meta-ti folks to improve it in
meta-ti 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com