HI 2017-02-09 14:49 GMT+08:00 Jacob Chen <jacob2.c...@rock-chips.com>: > Hi > > > Trevor Woerner wrote on 2017年01月28日 03:41: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Romain Perier <romain.per...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Could you: > - Make one patch per new machine file and not one patch for all new added > machine > > Agreed. > > Are all of these machines actual devices? The evb one doesn't sound real. > > Are all of these machines released and available for purchase? I've > heard of the tinkerboard (although I can't seem to find one I can > actually buy) but I haven't heard of the fennec. > > > I think i should only leave tinker board here. > We have a lot of boards which are not open to the public, it's not suitable > to push them to the community. > > - Add a clear @DESCRIPTION for each board, see an example here: > https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-rockchip/tree/conf/machine/firefly-rk3288.conf > - Write a clear and an understandable commit message for your new patches > > @Trevor: What do you think about this rk-linux.inc ? I don't like this, > either its name and what it contains. > > First off, I think it's really great to see people contributing to > meta-rockchip! :-) > > This entire set of patches seems to be adding "official" support for > the rockchip devices; in other words, these recipes will help you to > create builds that use the official rockchip sources. That is great. > But I think a good BSP gives a user all the possibilities but then > leaves the final decision up to them. > > > : ) That's the reason why we try to push patches to here, we want that > "meta-rockchip" can > build between vendor old kernel/new kernel/old u-boot/new u-boot and > mainline kernel/u-boot > well. Community people might help develop mainline things. > > So I agree with Romain, I think the name could use more work. It would > be nice if this set of patches included something in the name that let > the user know these build from official sources. Then the user could > decide whether they want to use the official rockchip sources, or > whether they want to build from upstream. So I'm not opposed to the > idea of adding recipes for official sources, I'd like like to see them > added in a way that leaves the decision with the user. > > > > I added rk-linux.inc because i need a place to set up verndor-BSP default > settings. > I want that the user can choose various combinations by change the include > file in machine file. > e.g: > rk-linux.inc for linux-rockchip 4.4 + u-boot-rockchip-nex-dev > rk-linux.inc + rk-uboot.inc for linux-rockchip + u-boot-rockchip > > rk-linux.inc for linux-mainline + u-boot-mainline > > BTW, which name you think is better? What about follow raspberrypi? ├── include │ ├── rpi-base.inc │ ├── rpi-default-providers.inc │ ├── rpi-default-settings.inc │ ├── rpi-default-versions.inc │ └── tune-arm1176jzf-s.inc ├── raspberrypi0.conf ├── raspberrypi2.conf ├── raspberrypi3.conf └── raspberrypi.conf
> > > That's it for now. > Thanks for your patches > > +1 :-) > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto