>I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we >normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core... >Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing?
Well I know I like to use U-Boot since it can go across multiple archs. Well I guess it makes since to just have it in OE-Core. Other than that that's what I wanted was U-Boot for x86 mostly....But if It's in OE-Core then there's no need to abstract that out to a different layer I guess. Thanks. John On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tuesday 11 November 2014 11:51:23 John Unland wrote: >> What about bootloaders? Where would I file a enhancement for different >> boot loaders (U-Boot, Lilo, etc.). Would be good if we had a boot >> loaders layer. > > I'm not sure a separate bootloaders layer would really make sense - we > normally keep bootloaders either in OE-Core (where we currently have u-boot, > grub, grub-efi, syslinux, gummiboot, etc.) or in specific BSPs where a > specific > bootloader is needed (or a specific version of an existing bootloader, e.g. > BSPs shipping their own version of u-boot is common). FWIW there is also a > meta-initramfs layer in the meta-openembedded repository which contains > kexecboot. > > Are there bootloader(s) that you are looking for that are currently missing? > > Cheers, > Paul > > -- > > Paul Eggleton > Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto