On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 04:09:46PM -0500, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > > > On 6/13/2024 2:47 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 02:29:34PM -0500, Ryan Eatmon wrote: > >> > >> > >>On 6/13/2024 12:22 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >>>From: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@konsulko.com> > >>> > >>>This adds a facility to define multiple supported BSPs with their own > >>>preferences for individual components, as well as lets machine configs > >>>specify conditional configurations for different BSPs. > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <de...@konsulko.com> > >>>--- > >> > >><snip> > >> > >>>+ > >>>+# ========== > >>>+# ti-6_6 > >>>+# TI staging kernel 6.6, u-boot 2024.04 > >>>+# ========== > >>>+BSP_KERNEL_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_6 = "linux-ti-staging" > >>>+BSP_KERNEL_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_6 = "6.6%" > >>>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_6 = "u-boot-ti-staging" > >>>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_6 = "2024%" > >>>+ > >>>+# Only Rogue is enabled so far, SGX falls back to SW rendering > >>>+BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_6 = "ti-img-rogue-driver" > >>>+BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_6 = "24%" > >>>+BSP_ROGUE_UMLIBS_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_6 = "24%" > >>>+BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_6 = "23%" > >>>+ > >>>+# ========== > >>>+# ti-6_1 > >>>+# TI staging kernel 6.1, u-boot 2023.04 > >>>+# ========== > >>>+BSP_KERNEL_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_1 = "linux-ti-staging" > >>>+BSP_KERNEL_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "6.1%" > >>>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_1 = "u-boot-ti-staging" > >>>+BSP_BOOTLOADER_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "2023%" > >>>+ > >>>+BSP_SGX_DRIVER_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_1 = "ti-sgx-ddk-km" > >>>+BSP_SGX_DRIVER_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "1.17%" > >>>+BSP_SGX_UMLIBS_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "1.17%" > >>>+BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_PROVIDER:bsp-ti-6_1 = "ti-img-rogue-driver" > >>>+BSP_ROGUE_DRIVER_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "23%" > >>>+BSP_ROGUE_UMLIBS_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "23%" > >>>+BSP_MESA_PVR_VERSION:bsp-ti-6_1 = "22%" > >> > >>I wonder if I can use this same system to support the upstream > >>testing... After we accept this series I need to look at how the > >>upstream testing flow can leverage this concept. > > > >That's the mainline setup... > > For the kernel we use linux-ti-next not mainline.
Right, linux-next tree vs. torvalds one. I considered supporting both in ti-bsp.inc, but thought that mainline pulling torvalds tree would be more useful for 99% of meta-ti users, than pulling ever-changing linux-next. Other than the kernel tree, the rest is exactly the same as bsp-mainline, and it is still possible to overwrite PREFERRED_PROVIDER on top: https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-arago/tree/meta-arago-distro/conf/distro/include/branding-next.inc?h=scarthgap-wip Even w/o meta-arago, all it takes is 2 lines: TI_DEFAULT_BSP = "mainline" PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-ti-next" BTW, linux-ti-next and linux-ti-mainline recipes originally were quite different, but over time became very similar. I'm thinking these can be cleaned up and unified - either one includes another and adjusts SRC_URI, or potentially even a single recipe with a switch... -- Denys
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#17740): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/17740 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/106655975/21656 Group Owner: meta-ti+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
