On 12-03-09 09:36 AM, Bob Cochran wrote:
On 03/09/2012 08:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 12-03-09 07:20 AM, David Nyström wrote:
Hi All,
Whats yoctos take on LTSI ?
http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=ltsi-kernel.git;a=summary
http://lwn.net/Articles/484337/
I've noticed that LTT-ng and other kernel patches are independently
ported and maintained by the yocto project.
Are there any plans for yocto to have ltsi-kernel patches as upstream ?
We'll be syncing up with the ltsi kernel parts over the summer.
But yes, LTSI will be one of the sources used for yocto kernel trees.
Cheers,
Bruce
I just finished reviewing the slides for LTSI given at ELC:
(https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lf_elc12_shibata.pdf).
Why does the Linux Foundation need to get behind yet another effort to
maintain a kernel repository for embedded? It seems that many of the
objectives are the same for the two projects regarding the kernel. Why
not just branch a yearly Yocto kernel as long-term stable and add the
support methodology outlined in the LTSI slides to this branch? Perhaps
this could also be done with the Poky repo?
LTSI is still relatively new, a bit of patience is required for
us to effectively collaborate between the two areas.
But yocto will always have a newer kernel than LTSI as we work
throughout any given period. Quite simply put, there is no way to
have one kernel version that meets everyone's needs. That's always
been the case, and will likely continue to be the case for the
forseeable future.
How is a developer supposed to view Yocto and LTSI? The former is
cutting edge, developer friendly with all the bells & whistles, and
experimental but use the latter for production??? Or maybe use the tools
and rootfs from Yocto but the kernel from LTSI?
These sorts of things are still being worked out, when we actually
have a LSTI based yocto option, some sort of messaging will be
created.
It seems Greg K-H of LTSI should join forces with Yocto and keep things
simple & unified for us embedded developers (or Yocto should dump
maintaining its own kernel repos and just draw from LTSI).
I already have initial conact with Greg on sync'ing up my efforts with
LSTI. Perhaps someday there will be a more complete overlap in the
two, but today there isn't a complete overlap, so there will be
additions to LTSI that some boards/features/etc that yocto requires.
Those additions may degrade to zero over time. In fact, if everything
would just go mainline .. that would be even better.
Cheers,
Bruce
Bob
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
