Daiane, We have been working with a vanilla (4.0+) kernel on some related platforms, and are considering moving the BA16 platform to this as well. Is there an effort to move some of the mainline work, such as etna-viv and related packages, into the meta-freescale layer? Would it be acceptable to push a 4.0 kernel even if those packages are not supported?
Thank you, Justin On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Daiane Angolini <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Justin Waters > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Daiane, > > > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Daiane Angolini <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > >> > >> > +SRCBRANCH = "3.10.17-advantech" > >> > +SRCREV = "852aa790665cd8f4350e5efbbb1d3471c78194fd" > >> > +DEPENDS += "lzop-native bc-native" > >> > +COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "(mx6q-ba16)" > >> > >> Is there a plan to have more imx6 Advantech's boards in future? > > > > > > Possibly, although most are based on this DMS-BA16 module, and only > really > > differ with the device tree. More than likely, it will just be appended > > lines to the device tree list. > > In this case, I think it's OK to get a machine name in > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE. Otherwise I would point wandboard as an example on > how to have several boards with only one kernel. > > Thanks > > Daiane > -- Justin Waters Director of Engineering Timesys Corporation
-- _______________________________________________ meta-freescale mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
