[OE-core] [poky] [PATCH 0/3] U-boot recipe for most recent stable release.

[Martin Jansa]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 10:34:34AM -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 01/31/2012 09:42 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > On 12-01-31 11:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> >> On 01/27/2012 08:21 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>> This adds a recipe for U-Boot v2011.12.  In doing so, some of
> >>> non-shareable settings were moved out of u-boot.inc and others
> >>> moved in.
> >>>
> >>> The recipe was tested on an mpc8315 Yocto configuration.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Gortmaker (3):
> >>>     u-boot: Don't make the -Os removal part of global settings.
> >>>     u-boot: make FILESDIR a shared setting.
> >>>     u-boot: Add recipe for u-boot v2011.12
> >>>
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot.inc        |    4 +---
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.03.bb |    3 ++-
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.06.bb |    3 ++-
> >>>    meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb |   20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>    4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>    create mode 100644 meta/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot_2011.12.bb
> >>>
> >>
> >> What about the u-boot-mkimage recipe, does that also need to be updated?
> >
> > It could be, but it strictly doesn't have to be.  I'd say that
> > mkimage is a tool akin to something like tar -- i.e. you can build
> > whatever version you want, but its functionality isn't going
> > to really change often from one release to the next.
> >
> > If you want it updated, I can send a follow on patch to do
> > that.  What do you guys usually do with the old recipes, leave
> > them laying around, or STONITH?
> >
> Adding openembedded-core since that is really where patches to meta 
> should go.
> 
> u-boot seems to be a special beast since we keep the older recipes 
> around for u-boot itself, are they are compatibility issues with going 
> to the latest u-boot-mkimage and older u-boot itself?
> 
> Comments from the u-boot users?  Do we need to keep the older u-boot or 
> u-boot-mkimage around, or should the move to BSP/layers that need the 
> compatibility of the older version?

All machines from meta-smartphone which are using u-boot are using only
uboot.inc from oe-core, because each has own patchset derived from
specific upstream revision.

Not the best, but such machine specific u-boot_git.bb are quite small
and not so bad to maintain.

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20120131/482e685b/attachment-0002.sig>