On 12-01-04 12:15 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
On (23/12/11 12:59), Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 11-12-23 12:52 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 18:45 heeft Bruce Ashfield het volgende geschreven:
On 11-12-23 12:38 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
On 12/23/2011 12:10 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 11-12-23 08:10 AM, James Abernathy wrote:
On Dec 23, 2011, at 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 23 dec. 2011, om 09:37 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
On Friday 23 December 2011 09:28:31 Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 22 dec. 2011, om 16:06 heeft Jim Abernathy het volgende geschreven:
I know the examples in the documentation of Yocto use meta-intel a
lot
to get the board specific BSPs like meta-crownbay or meta-n450.
Is there a meta-ti or similar that gets you the meta-beagleboard and
meta-pandaboard? If not how do you clone and checkout the pandaboard
BPS?
http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-texasinstruments/
It has a README in there on how to set it up, read it and follow it
precisely.
Just out of interest, why does meta-texasinstruments depend on
meta-angstrom?
It needs extra things in overrides and reuses tasks from there.
Sorry for the follow-up, but if I clone the meta-texasinstruments bsp
repository and checkout the pandaboard-rework branch,
how does that relate to the Yocto branch/bsp yocto/standard/pandaboard
on the Yocto site?
I'll jump into the middle of the thread, and answer a couple of specific
questions and leave the larger what depends on what, and where
things evolve and why .. for another day.
The yocto/standard/pandaboard in the 3.0 kernel tree is the refresh/update
of a reference BSP for the 3.0 (and newer) kernel(s).
Who is the intended audience of this BSP? The Angstrom/meta-to layer is
obviously intended for people using TI hardware and all the associated
peripherals. Without defining your audience better, this jsut adds to
the confusion end users are experiencing with all the words and layers
being used in emails. This is becoming a real problem as new users enter
the project.
Quite simply, the audience that needs a particular kernel version
and feature set, with the tooling to transition to a supported (i.e
not the yocto one) BSP.
You do realize that by doing this without informing anyone involved with the official
pandaboard BSP the net effect is negative? And by 'negative' I mean "severe
annoyance" among other things.
.. and why would you assume that precisely that hadn't been done ?
It has been, via management channels at multiple companies and
organizations and is exactly why I said "a layer you can't get"
and "work in progress".
So please, no need to jump to anything resembling 'annoyance'.
There's plenty of that to go around, and it isn't constructive.
I think it would be nice if we had a wiki document which listed
various BSPs for a given platform that are available using the
given layers and some words differentiating them. That can help
end users in understanding and deciding which to use.
AFAIK there are plans in this area for the 1.2 timeframe, perhaps
via the BSP portal that TomZ was creating. Something linked from the
wiki pages that list all the available layers would be the logical
place to locate something like this as well.
Richard may have more insight as to whether or not something is planned
like this.
Cheers,
Bruce
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
