Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
There was a parallel conversation on the irc meanwhile; we've concluded that Enrico will look into adding qemu based tests for barebox into oe-selftest like we already have for EFI bootloaders, and there will be a new patchset then. Alex On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 16:01, Enrico Jörns wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 15:11 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador > > wrote: > > > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and > > > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well > > > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if > > > Pengutronix will commit to support it. > > > > You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing > > stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then > > disappearing. > > If possible I would add my name with the above-mentioned Mailing list to the > maintainers file. > This ensures I am responsible but not the only one reading the mails. > > > And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things > > (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I > > then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry > > lynch mob that will show up after my head. > > I am fully ok with removing barebox again if we fail maintaining it properly. > > Should I sign this somewhere? ;) > > > Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so > > I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed > > fixing to classes and infra in core. > > It has been in meta-ptx since 2015 and in meta-barebox since 2016. I would > call that 'a while' :) > > > Best regards, Enrico > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns| > Embedded Linux Consulting & Support| https://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Steuerwalder Str. 21 | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180 | > 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9| >
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 15:11 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador > wrote: > > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and > > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well > > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if > > Pengutronix will commit to support it. > > You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing > stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then > disappearing. If possible I would add my name with the above-mentioned Mailing list to the maintainers file. This ensures I am responsible but not the only one reading the mails. > And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things > (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I > then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry > lynch mob that will show up after my head. I am fully ok with removing barebox again if we fail maintaining it properly. Should I sign this somewhere? ;) > Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so > I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed > fixing to classes and infra in core. It has been in meta-ptx since 2015 and in meta-barebox since 2016. I would call that 'a while' :) Best regards, Enrico -- Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns| Embedded Linux Consulting & Support| https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180 | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9|
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 11:11, Alexander Kanavin escreveu: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador > wrote: > > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and > > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well > > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if > > Pengutronix will commit to support it. > > You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing > stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then > disappearing. And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things > (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I > then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry > lynch mob that will show up after my head. Yes. If no one maintains, it should be removed. People will get mad but then we'll see more commitment in future. > Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so > I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed > fixing to classes and infra in core. Sure but adding things to the core should still be possible and it is a place to foster work sharing and contribution. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 14:53, Otavio Salvador wrote: > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well > integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if > Pengutronix will commit to support it. You should be well aware there's a history of people contributing stuff to core and even assigning themselves as maintainers, then disappearing. And then it falls (largely) on me to keep things (barely) going. What happens if ptx withdraws its commitment? Can I then send a commit that removes barebox from core? Imagine the angry lynch mob that will show up after my head. Adding things to core is a decision that cannot be easily reversed, so I'd rather have barebox in meta-barebox for a while, with any needed fixing to classes and infra in core. Alex
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 10:53 -0300 schrieb Otavio Salvador: > Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 10:44, Alexander Kanavin > escreveu: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador > > wrote: > > > > Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to > > > > see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm > > > > sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't > > > > just add everything! :) > > > > > > > > The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. > > > It is a solid and > > > commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but > > > Barebox is also widely > > > used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core. > > > > I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in > > oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: > > https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox > > so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of > > using that layer, there's no fragmentation. > > I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and > reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well > integrated with U-Boot. Yes, this is another valid point. We have already identified that many things in OE are a bit tailored to u-boot. Having another option (as one has for x86 with grub anyway) could, especially on ARM platforms, inspire to make things more generic and probably also create community synergy effects. What clearly would not be the intention is to tailor things in oe-core for barebox only. > For me, a critical point for decision is if > Pengutronix will commit to support it. Yes, I stated that this is clearly our intention. So support isn't only a one-man show at all ;) Thanks and best regards, Enrico -- Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns| Embedded Linux Consulting & Support| https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180 | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9|
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
Em qua., 15 de fev. de 2023 às 10:44, Alexander Kanavin escreveu: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador > wrote: > >> Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to > >> see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm > >> sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't > >> just add everything! :) > >> > >> The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It > > is a solid and commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry > > standard, but Barebox is also widely used, and it makes sense to be part of > > OE-Core. > > I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in > oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: > https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox > so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of > using that layer, there's no fragmentation. I think the Barebox inside OE-Core allows a bigger integration and reuse of existing tooling for signing and other classes currently well integrated with U-Boot. For me, a critical point for decision is if Pengutronix will commit to support it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.brhttp://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
Am Mittwoch, dem 15.02.2023 um 14:43 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador > wrote: > > > Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to > > > see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm > > > sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't > > > just add everything! :) > > > > > > The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It > > is a solid and > > commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry standard, but > > Barebox is also widely > > used, and it makes sense to be part of OE-Core. > > I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in > oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: > https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox > so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of > using that layer, there's no fragmentation. > You forgot to mention https://github.com/pengutronix/meta-ptx/tree/master/recipes-bsp/barebox I did never say that fragmentation is my only motivation. Regards, Enrico -- Pengutronix e.K. | Enrico Jörns| Embedded Linux Consulting & Support| https://www.pengutronix.de/ | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | Phone: +49-5121-206917-180 | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9|
Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] barebox: add initial support
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 12:22, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> Fair enough, I'm open to the idea. It would be interesting/useful to >> see if anyone else in the community is in favour of this or not. I'm >> sure you appreciate why we need to ask the question and why we can't >> just add everything! :) >> >> The community usage does appear to be primarily phytec/ptx. > > > I have used barebox in some projects in the past for multiple customers. It > is a solid and commonly used bootloader. I consider U-Boot the industry > standard, but Barebox is also widely used, and it makes sense to be part of > OE-Core. I do not quite understand why barebox needs to be specifically in oe-core. There's a well maintained layer for it: https://github.com/menschel-d/meta-barebox so once all those meta-phytec recipes are phased out in favour of using that layer, there's no fragmentation. Alex
