Hi,
Eddie Cai wrote on 2017年02月09日 16:20:
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
I send the wrong draft due to the poor network... Please ignore the e.g...
What i think it's that the users should always get image with all
features enabled with default settings.
I will be killed if i let them to set each settings one by one in
local.conf to enable features....
ok to change name and split file, but i think the things it contianed is
needed.
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
split rk-linux.inc into
rk-base.inc
rk-vendor-providers.inc
rk-vendor-settings.inc
rk-vendor-versions.inc
rk-community-providers.inc
rk-community-settings.inc
rk-community-versions.inc
?
Hmmm, it look more clearly than rk-linux.inc.
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
