On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:39:48AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Mont3z Claros <mont3z.cla...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I just finished a first beta version of a meta layer for SBC pine64. >> > You can find it in https://github.com/mont3z/meta-pine64 >> > >> > I'd appreciate if anyone has any comments on possible improvements. A >> > major problem I had was the necessity of two toolchains: one for >> > compiling u-boot (32 bits) and another for compiling all other >> > components (64 bis). At the moment I have a very ugly hack to do it. >> > The 32 bit toolchain is an external toolchain and I set PATH >> > environmental variable in u-boot recipe. >> >> I think it would be desirable to have single toolchain, u-boot is a >> stand alone app >> in general, if your compiler can do multilib builds for 32bit then it >> would be possible >> to build it. May be you should work with the toolchain team for pine64 to >> see if >> that can be done. It will simplify using this layer. > > Actually, pine64 has a 64bit U-Boot, I think maybe the layer just needs > to be updated to use mainline (or v2016.09.01) U-Boot. > >> Other option I would suggest to build u-boot externally for your SoC, we do >> not necessarily need a bootloader for building final images anyway. > > Well, you do if you want a bootable image to be made :) iirc all of the > models are SD card only, no eMMC so assuming firmware "elsewhere" is a > bad idea.
You can always write a recipe to package a prebuilt u-boot. > > -- > Tom -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
